Trades

Trades

Trades

Trades

Trades Trades

Landfill

Integrated System

Design

System Capability & Manufacturing

Process Demonstration Low-Rate Initial Production

Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System

Full-Rate Production/Deployment

Engineering & Manufacturing Development Phase Operations & Support Phase

DoD Decision

Support Systems

Effective Interaction

is Essential

Life Cycle Sustainment

Materiel Solution Analysis Phase Technology Development Phase Production & Deployment Phase

Version 5.4 15 June 2010

Complete Analysis of Alternatives to assess potential materiel solutions to

capability need, identify key technologies and estimate life cycle costs.

Consider commercial-off-the-shelf and solutions from both large and

small business. Identify materiel solution to capability need.

Complete Technology Development Strategy. 

Reduce technology risk, determine and mature appropriate set of technologies to integrate into full system,

demonstrate critical technology elements on prototypes, and complete preliminary design. Identify an

affordable program or increment of militarily useful capability, demonstrate technology in relevant

environment, and identify and assess manufacturing risks. Provide for two or more competing teams

producing prototypes of system and/or key system elements prior to or through Milestone B.

Develop a system or increment of capability; complete full system integration, develop affordable and executable manufacturing process;

ensure operational supportability; reduce logistics footprint; implement human systems integration; design for producibility; ensure

affordability; protect critical program information; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and utility.

Achieve operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Low-rate initial production (limited deployment for software intensive

systems with no development hardware) and full-rate production (full deployment for software intensive systems). Deliver

fully funded quantity of systems and supporting material and services for program or increment to users.

Execute support program that meets materiel readiness and

operational support performance requirements and

sustains system in most cost-effective manner.

Overlaps Production and Deployment Phase.

Disposal

Strategic Guidance

MS

B

MS

C

MS

A

Joint

Capabilities Integration

& Development System

VCJCS Oversight

CJCSI 3170.01 series

Defense

Acquisition

System

USD(AT&L) Oversight

DoDD 5000.01

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting & Execution

Process

DEPSECDEF Oversight

DoD 7000.14-R Following the Materiel Development Decision, the Milestone Decision Authority may authorize entry into the acquisition process at any point, consistent with phase-specific entrance criteria and statutory requirements

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System - Acronyms

CDD – Capability Development Document

CPD – Capability Production Document

DCR DOTMLPF Ch R d ti

IOC – Initial Operational Capability

IT – Information Technology

JP 3 0 J i t P bli ti 3 0 “J i t O ti ”

System Threat Assessment

Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

System Threat Assessment

Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

System Threat Assessment

Force

Protection Survivability

KPP

PostCDR A Decision Points/Milestones MDD FRP

DR IOC FOC

This chart is a classroom aid for Defense Acquisition University students. It provides a notional illustration of interfaces among three major

decision support systems used to develop, produce and field a weapon system for national defense. Defense acquisition is a complex process

with many more activities than shown here and many concurrent activities that cannot be displayed on a two-dimensional chart. Supporting

information is on back of this chart. For more information, see the Defense Acquisition Portal (http://dap.dau.mil).

FDDR For software

intensive

Compliant systems Solution

Supportability

Requirements

Technical

Standards &

Compliant

Solution

Supportability

Requirements

Technical

Standards &

Compliant

Solution

Supportability

Requirements

Technical

Standards &

E it

B C

Joint

Capabilities 

Integration &

Development

System

(need-driven)

Joint Operations Concepts

Concept of Operations

Operations Plans

Initiate Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy Evolutionary Acquisition Strategy

Joint Operations Concepts

Concept of Operations

Technology Development Strategy

AoA Report

DoD Enterprise Architecture &

Solution Architecture

Technical Standards Profile

Threshold/objective tradeoffs –

Revised Performance Attributes

Component/JROC

Validation &

Approval

KPPs

CDD Draft

CDD

KPPs

CPD

MS B

Cert

FRP

E it C

MS A

Cert

Non-materiel solutions

JROC/

Component

Validation and

Approval

DCR

E it

Threshold/objective tradeoffs –

Revised Performance Attributes

Threshold/objective tradeoffs –

Revised Performance Attributes

A

Increment 2 PCDRA

Capabilities-Based

Assessment

DCR – DOTMLPF Change Recommendation

DOTMLPF – Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel,

Leadership and Education, Personnel, & Facilities

FOC – Full Operational Capability

ICD – Initial Capabilities Document

JP 3-0 – Joint Publication 3-0, “Joint Operations”

JROC – Joint Requirements Oversight Council

MUA – Military Utility Assessment

KPP – Key Performance Parameter

KSA – Key System Attribute

Validated and approved

CDD & CPD for each increment of

evolutionary acquisition

Selectively Applied

System

Training

KPP

Energy

Efficiency

KPP

Joint Staff Review J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, &

supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy 

efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

Protection

KPP KPP

Selectively Applied

System

Training

KPP

Energy

Efficiency

KPP

Joint Staff Review J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, &

supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy 

efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

Joint Staff Review J-1 – Joint manpower. J-2 – Intelligence/threat.

J-3 – Operational suitability, sufficiency, &

supportability. J-4 – Facilities, sustainment, & energy 

efficiency. J-5 – Alignment with strategy & priorities.

J-6 – IT/NSS interoperability & supportability.

J-7 – Systems training. J-8 – Weapons safety.

KPPs Traceable

To ICD &

JP 3-0

Protection

KPP KPP Protection

KPP KPP

Selectively Applied

System

Training

KPP

Energy

Efficiency

KPP

E it

(If program initiation, or if equiv to FDDR)

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS) - Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

E it

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS) - Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS) - Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Clinger-Cohen Act (IT incl NSS) - Compliance

- CIO Confirmation of Compliance

Component/JROC

Validation &

Approval

Component/JROC

Validation &

Approval

Solution

Architectures

Information

Assurance

Net Centric

Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & N interfaces et-Ready

KPP

Solution

Architectures

Information

Assurance

Net Centric

Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & N interfaces et-Ready

KPP

Solution

Architectures

Information

Assurance

Net Centric

Data & Services

Strategy

Standards & N interfaces et-Ready

KPP

Information

Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo

Report for

Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstrations & other

prototype projects

Information

Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo

Report for

Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstrations & other

prototype projects

Information

Support

Plan

MUA/Final Demo

Report for

Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstrations & other

prototype projects

KPPs Traceable

To ICD &

JP 3-0

KPPs Traceable

To ICD &

JP 3-0

Materiel Availability &

Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership

Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

Materiel Availability &

Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership

Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

Materiel Availability &

Operational Availability

Reliability

KSA

Ownership

Cost

KSA

Availability

KPP

ICD

Joint Operations Concepts

Concept of Operations

System Threat Assessment

AoA (if updated)

DoD Enterprise Architecture &

Solution Architecture

Information Support Plan

Technical Standards Profile

Joint Operations Concepts

Concept of Operations

System Threat Assessment

AoA (if updated)

DoD Enterprise Architecture &

Solution Architecture

Information Support Plan

Technical Standards Profile

A

Oversight

&

Review

Exit

Criteria

Exit

Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria

Met Exit

Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria

ADM

Contracting

Purpose of LRIP:

•Complete manufacturing development

•Establish initial production base

•Ramp to production rate

•Produce systems for IOT&E

Study

Contracts

AoA updated as 

necessary

TLCSM TLCSM TLCSM

Total Life

Cycle Systems

Management

MDA DAB/

ITAB MDA

Exit

Criteria

ADM

Exit

Criteria

Cost-Type

Contract

Determination (if applicable)

ADM

B C

FRP

Exit

Criteria

Met

PSR APB

Cert

ADM

AoA

AoA Study

Guidance

AoA Study

Plan

Exit

Criteria

Met

APB

Final RFP cannot be released

until TDS is approved

Post-CDR Report

P- CDRA Increment 3

Final RFP cannot be released

until Acq Strategy is approved Final RFP cannot be released

until Acq Strategy is approved

Final RFP cannot be released

until Acq Strategy is approved

AoA updated as

necessary AoA MAIS

only

ADM – Acquisition Decision Memorandum

AoA – Analysis of Alternatives

APB – Acquisition Program Baseline

CDR – Critical Design Review

CBRN – Chemical, Biological, Radiological & Nuclear

DAB – Defense Acquisition Board

ECP – Engineering Change Proposal

ESOH – Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health

EVM – Earned Value Management

FRPDR – Full Rate Production Decision Review

FDDR – Full Deployment Decision Review

IBR – Integrated Baseline Review

ITAB – Information Technology Acquisition Board

LRIP – Low Rate Initial Production

MAIS – Major Automated Information System

MDA – Milestone Decision Authority

MDD – Materiel Development Decision

NSS – National Security Systems

PDR – Preliminary Design Review

P-CDRA – Post Critical Design Review Assessment

P-PDRA – Post PDR Assessment

PSR – Program Support Review

RAM-C – Reliability, Availability, Maintainability & Cost

Rationale Report

RFP – Request for Proposals

RFI – Request for Information

TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment

TLCSM – Total Life Cycle Systems Management

Oversight & Review and Contracting Acronyms

ADM

Post- PDR A

Required if PDR is 

after Milestone B

Exit

Criteria

Met

PSR PSR

TRA Exit

Criteria

Met

APB

PSR

TRA

PDR Report

DAB/

ITAB MDA DAB/ITAB MDA DAB/

ITAB MDA DAB/ITAB MDA

Acquisition Strategy • Acquisition Approach

• Source & Related Documents

• Capability Needs

• Top-Level Integrated Schedule

• Program Interdependency &

Interoperability Summary

• International Cooperation

• Risk & Risk Management

• Technology Maturation

• Industrial Capability &

Manufacturing Readiness

• Business Strategy

• Resource Management

• Program Security Considerations

• Test & Evaluation

• Data Management

• Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning

• Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan

• CBRN Survivability

• Human Systems Integration

• ESOH

• MilitaryEquipment Valuation &

Accountability

• Corrosion Prevention & Control

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

Acq

Plan

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source

Selection

Plan

Source

Selection

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source

Selection

Plan

Source

Selection

• Acquisition Approach

• Source & Related Documents

• Capability Needs

• Top-Level Integrated Schedule

• Program Interdependency &

Interoperability Summary

• International Cooperation

• Risk & Risk Management

• Technology Maturation &

Competitive Prototyping

• Industrial Capability &

Manufacturing Capabilities

• Business Strategy

• Resource Management

• Program Security

Considerations

• Test Planning

• Data Management &

Technical Data Rights

• Life-Cycle Sustainment

Planning

• Life-Cycle Signature

Support Plan

• CBRN Survivability

Technology Development Strategy (TDS) Acquisition Strategy • Acquisition Approach

• Source & Related Documents

• Capability Needs

• Top-Level Integrated Schedule

• Program Interdependency &

Interoperability Summary

• International Cooperation

• Risk & Risk Management

• Technology Maturation

• Industrial Capability &

Manufacturing Readiness

• Business Strategy

• Resource Management

• Program Security Considerations

• Test & Evaluation

• Data Management

• Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning

• Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan

• CBRN Survivability

• Human Systems Integration

• ESOH

• MilitaryEquipment Valuation &

Accountability

• Corrosion Prevention & Control

Acquisition Strategy • Acquisition Approach

• Source & Related Documents

• Capability Needs

• Top-Level Integrated Schedule

• Program Interdependency &

Interoperability Summary

• International Cooperation

• Risk & Risk Management

• Technology Maturation

• Industrial Capability &

Manufacturing Readiness

• Business Strategy

• Resource Management

• Program Security

Considerations

• Test & Evaluation

• Data Management

• Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning

• Life-Cycle Signature Support

Plan

• CBRN Survivability

• Human Systems Integration

• ESOH

• Corrosion Prevention & Control

Technology

Development

Contract

Draft RFP

RFP &

Proposals

Source

Selection

Plan

Source

Selection

PDR Report

Draft RFP

Acq

Plan

RFP &

Proposals

Source

Selection

Plan

Source

Selection

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

Engineering &

Manufacturing 

Development Contract

Acq

Plan

Acq

Plan

Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

LRIP

Contract Contract Management ECPs/Changes Contract Closeout

Production

Contract

Post-Production Software Support Contracts

Initial

RAM-C

Report

Defense

Acquisition

Low-Rate Initial

Production

Systems

Prototypes

System

Performance

Spec

Production

Representative

Articles

Full-Rate

Production

Systems

Major

Products

Final

Product

Baseline

FOT&E

•ICD

•AoA Study Plan

•Exit Criteria

•Alternative Maintenance

& Sustainment Concepts

OUTPUTS

•ICD & Draft CDD

•Approved Materiel Solution

•Exit Criteria

•Support & Maintenance Concepts

& Technologies

•Systems Engineering Plan

•AoA Report

Most

Acceptable

Recycle/Reuse

Disposal

Logistics/

Sustainment

Evaluate Product

Support Capabilities

Performance-Based

Agreements

Product Support Integrator/

Product Support Provider

BLRIP

Report to

Congress

Post-CDR A

FRP B DR

Demonstrate Product Support Capability •Footprint Reduction

•Supply Chain Management

•Product Support Elements

•Finalize Product Support BCA

•Preliminary System Spec

•Systems Engineering Plan

•T&E Strategy

•System Safety Analysis

•Support & Maintenance Concepts

& Technologies

•Inputs to:

•System Allocated Baseline

•PDR Report •Test Reports

•SEP •TEMP •PESHE •PPP •TRA

•NEPA Compliance Schedule

•Risk Assessment •LCSP

•Validated Systems Support & Maint

Objectives & Requirements

•Initial Product Baseline

•Test Reports

•SEP •TRA •PESHE •TEMP

•NEPA Compliance Schedule

•Elements of Product Support

•Risk Assessment

•Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Develop Initial Product Support Strategy

Initiate Product Support BCA

(Define Ground Rules & Assumptions)

Performance-Based Logistics (PBL) Strategy (Preferred Product Support Approach)

Refine

Supportability

Objectives/

Constraints

Pre-IOC and Post IOC Supportability Assessments

Post-Deployment

Review

INPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS OUTPUTS INPUTS C Business Case

Analysis

Initial

Product

Baseline

(verified)

Define

Supportability

Objectives

Prototypes

Product Support Plan •Statutory/Regulatory

•Source of Support

•Legacy Considerations

•Conduct Product Support BCA

-Supply Support -Training

-Maintenance -Support Data

-Manpower & personnel

•Product Support Elements Set

Product Support

Strategy

Technical & Logistics Acronyms ASR – Alternative Systems Review

AOTR – Assessment of Operational Test Readiness

BCA – Business Case Analysis

BLRIP – Beyond Low Rate Initial Production

CDR – Critical Design Review

CI Configuration Item

OA – Operational Assessment

OTRR – Operational Test Readiness Review

PBA – Performance-Based Agreement

PESHE – Programmatic Environment,

Safety & Occupational Health Evaluation

PDR Preliminary Design Review

•Sys Performance Spec

•Acquisition Strategy

•Exit Criteria

•APB •CDD •STA •ISP

•SEP •TEMP •PESHE •PPP

•NEPA Compliance Schedule

•Risk Assessment

MDD A

Alternative

Materiel

Solutions

Initial

Product

Baseline

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Materiel

Solution

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Closeout

EVM

Surveillance

IBR

Production Qualification

Testing

Joint Interoperability

Full-Up System Level LFT&E

IOT&E

AOTR OTRR

as required

Sustainment Contracts

Product Support Package/PBL Implementation •Product Support Elements

•Support and Cost Baseline

•Contract for Sustainment

(organic & Commercial)

•Supply Chain Management

•Revalidate BCA

•Refine Life Cycle Sustainment

Plan

•Continuous Tech Refreshment

•Obsolescence Management

•Configuration Control

•Data Management

•Monitor Performance & Adjust

Product Support

Product Support/PBL Management •Public-Private Partnering

•Supply Chain Management

•PBA Modifications

•Assessment of PSI/PSPs

•Revalidate PBA/BCA

Operations and Sustainment •Peacetime

•Training

•Revalidate BCA

•Joint Operations

•Crises

•Refine LCSP

System

(event-driven) FCA

Technical

Systems Engineering

Test and Evaluation

Supportability

Analyze/Assess

Concepts Versus

Defined User Needs &

Environmental Constraints

Decompose Concept

Functional Definition into

Component Concepts &

Assessment Objectives

Trades Trades

Implement and

Field

INPUTS •Service Use Data

•User Feedback •Failure Reports

•Discrepancy Reports

•SEP

•System Safety Analysis

•Product Support Element

Requirements

OUTPUTS

Integrated DT&E/OT&E/LFT&E

Demonstrate System to

Specified User Needs and

Environmental Constraints

o epo t

•T&E Strategy

•Technology Development Strategy

•System Safety Analysis

Analyze Deficiencies

To Determine Corrective

Actions

OUTPUTS

Modify Configuration

(Hardware/Software/Specs)

To Correct Deficiencies

Least

Acceptable

Reprocessing

Disposal

•Test Results

•Exit Criteria

•APB •CPD •SEP •TEMP

•Product Support Element

Requirements

•PESHE

•System Safety Analysis

INPUTS

LFTE

Report to

Congress

Verify and Validate

Production

Configuration

puts to

-draft CDD -AoA -TDS -IBR

-Cost/Manpower Est.

-Product Support Strategy

ASR

•System Safety Analysis

•Inputs to: -CDD -ISP -STA -IBR

-Acq Strategy

-Affordability Assessment

-Cost/Manpower Est.

SVR PRR

•System Safety Analysis

•Inputs to: -CPD -STA -ISP

-IBR -Cost/Manpower Est.

•Data for In-Service Review

•Input to CDD for next increment

•Modifications/upgrades to fielded

systems

•SEP •Test Reports

•System Safety Analysis

•Product Support Package

•Product Baseline

•Test Reports

•SEP •PESHE •TEMP

•System Safety Analysis

•Inputs to: -IBR

- Cost/Manpower Est.

- Product Support Package

JITC Joint Interoperability

Test Certification

PCA In-Service

Review Monitor & Collect

Service Use & Supply

Chain Performance Data

Analyze Data to:

Validate Failures &

Determine Root Causes

Assess Risk of

Improved System

Interpret User Needs,

Analyze Operational

Capabilities &

Environmental Constraints

Verification

Linkage

Validation

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Validation

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification/

Validation

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

Verification

Linkage

ITR

Verification/

Validation

Linkage

FMECA

FTA

LORA

RCM

CI – Configuration Item

DT&E – Developmental Test & Evaluation

EOA – Early Operational Assessment

ESOH – Environment, Safety & Occupational Health

FCA – Functional Configuration Audit

FMECA – Failure Mode Effects & Criticality Analysis

FOT&E – Follow-On Test & Evaluation

FTA – Failure Tree Analysis

IOT&E – Initial Operational Test & Evaluation

ISR – In-Service Review

ISP – Information Support Plan

ITR – Initial Technical Review

JITC – Joint Interoperability Test Command

LFT&E – Live Fire Test & Evaluation

LORA – Level of Repair Analysis

MTA – Maintenance Task Analysis

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

PDR – Preliminary Design Review

PCA – Physical Configuration Audit

PRR – Production Readiness Review

PPP – Program Protection Plan

PSI – Product Support Integrator

PSP – Product Support Provider

RCM – Reliability Centered Maintenance

RMS – Reliability, Maintainability & Supportability

SEP – Systems Engineering Plan

SFR – System Functional Review

SRR – System Requirements Review

STA – System Threat Assessment

SVR – System Verification Review

TEMP – Test & Evaluation Master Plan

TDS – Technology Development Strategy

TRA – Technology Readiness Assessment

TRR – Test Readiness Review

Decompose Functional

Definitions into Critical

Component Definition &

Technologies Verification Plan

•Validated Sys Support & Maint

Objectives & Requirements

•Product Support Strategy

•System Safety Analysis

Demo & Validate System

& Tech Maturity Versus

Defined User Needs &

Environmental Constraints

SRR

Lighter blocks reflect technical

efforts required if PDR is 

required after Milestone B.

Assess/Analyze

Concept & Verify

System Concept’s

Performance

Develop Concept

Performance (& Constraints)

Definition & Verification

Objectives

Decompose Concept

Performance into

Functional Definition &

Verification Objectives

Assess/Analyze

System Concept

Versus Functional

Capabilities

Assess/Analyze

Enabling/Critical

Components Versus

Capabilities

Interpret User Needs.

Analyze Operational

Capabilities &

Environmental Constraints

Develop System Performance

(& Constraints) Spec &

Enabling/Critical Tech &

Prototypes Verification Plan

Demo System & Prototype

Functionality

Versus Plan

Develop Functional

Definitions for Enabling/

Critical Tech/Prototypes &

Associated Verification Plan

Demo Enabling/Critical

Technology Components

Versus Plan

Demo/Model

Integrated System Versus

Performance Spec

Interpret User Needs,

Refine System

Performance Specs &

Environmental Constraints

Interpret User Needs,

Refine System

Performance Specs &

Environmental Constraints

Evolve Functional

Performance Specs into

System Allocated Baseline

PDR

Develop System Functional

Specs & Verification Plan to

Evolve System Functional

Baseline

Evolve Functional

Performance Specs into

System Allocated Baseline

SFR

PDR

System DT&E, OT&E, LFT&E

& OAs Verify System

Functionality & Constraints

Compliance to Specs

Integrated DT&E, LFT&E &

EOAs Verify Performance

Compliance to Specs

Individual CI

Verification

DT&E

TRR

SFR

Develop System Functional

Specs & Verification Plan to

Evolve System Functional

Baseline

Joint Interoperability

Certification Testing

Evolve CI Functional

Specs into Product

(Build to) Documentation

& Verification Plan

Financial

Management

Actual Costs

Engineering

Cost Estimation

Methods

Parametric

Analogy

PMO Budget Estimate

PMO POM Input

CARD – Cost Analysis Requirements Description

CCE – Component Cost Estimate

CCP – Component Cost Position

ICE – Independent Cost Estimate

MDAP – Major Defense Acquisition Program

MAIS – Major Automated Information System

PMO – Program Management Office

RDT&E – Research, Development, Test & Evaluation

Cost Acronyms

Operations and

Maintenance

Types of

Funds RDT&E – Management & Support

RDT&E – Advanced Technology Development RDT&E – Advanced Component Development and Prototypes RDT&E – Systems Development & Demonstration

Assessment Objectives

Develop Component Concepts,

i.e., Enabling/Critical

Technologies, Constraints,

& Cost/Risk Drivers

Design/Develop System Concepts,

i.e., Enabling/Critical Technologies,

Update Constraints, &

Cost/Risk Drivers • Process Change

- Operations/Maintenance Support

• Materiel Change

- Hardware/Product Support Package

Fabricate, Assemble,

Code to “Build-to”

Documentation

Determine

System Risk/

Hazard Severity

Develop

Corrective

Action

Integrate and Test

Corrective Action

MTA

LORA

LFT&E

Waiver

(if appropriate)

(with alternate

LFT&E Plan)

Procurement

Technologies Verification Plan

CDR

CCE CCP

MDAP

CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CCE

MDAP

CCP Affordability

Assessment CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CARD CCE CCP

MDAP/MAIS

CARD

MDAP/MAIS

ICE

MDAP

CCE CCP Affordability

Assessment

Economic Analysis (MAIS)

Manpower Estimate (MDAP) Manpower Estimate (MDAP)

TD Phase

Fully Funded

Full Funding

In FYDP

Full Funding

In FYDP

Full Funding

In FYDP

Capabilities

ICE

MDAP MDAP

Economic Analysis (MAIS)

Manpower Estimate (MDAP)

MSA Phase

Fully Funded

MDAP

Economic Analysis (MAIS)

& Verification Plan

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting

& Execution 

Process

Military

Departments and

Defense Agencies

Decisions

White

House

Office of the

Secretary of Defense

and Joint Staff

MBI

July

August - November November December

January February (1st Monday)

FYDP – Future Years Defense Program

MBI – Major Budget Issues

OMB – Office of Management and Budget

PMO – Program Management Office

POM – Program Objectives Memorandum

Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Acronyms

Authors Chuck Cochrane and Brad Brown For a single copy of this chart, send a request to daupubs@dau.mil Send recommendations to improve the content of this chart to wallchart@dau.mil

(annualcalendar-driven)

Congressional Budget Process

Appropriation

Committees

Authorization

Committees

Authorization/

Appropriation

Acts Passed

DoD Testimony DoD Appeals

OMB

Appropriated Funds To Support Contracts

Fiscal Guidance

March

Fiscal Guidance

April

POM/Budget Formulation

SECDEF Option

POM/Budget Submit

DoD Budget Integrated Program/Budget 

Review

President’s Budget to

Congress

FYDP

updated

FYDP

updated

February – September

Budget

Committees

Defense Planning & 

Programming Guidance

Issue Nominations/Disposition

National Strategy Documents (updated as necessary)

National Security Strategy

National Defense Strategy

National Military Strategy

Allocation

Apportionment
1. INTRODUCTION. The Integrated Defense Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System 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-key processes that must work in concert 

to deliver the capabilities required by the warfighters: the requirements process 

(Joint Capabilities Integration & 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 

and Department of Defense (DoD) 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 3170.01G. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 

Mar 1, 2009

•	JCIDS Manual Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 

July 31, 2009

•	CJCS Instruction 6212.01E. Interoperability of Information Technology and National 

Security Systems, Dec. 15, 2008

•	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.

•	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.

•	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. This is called the “Integrated Defense

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Life Cycle Management System” 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 modificaof core values. Dominant leadership roles in program management include 

strategy setting, consensus/team building, systems integration, and change 

management. For successful teams, factors such as empowerment, clear purpose, open communication, adequate resources, and a team-oriented behavioral environment are critical.

4. JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND 

DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM (JCIDS). 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 3):

•	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 Materiel Development 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.

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

capability gaps, capability needs, and approaches to provide those capa-

 bilities 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 nonmateriel 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 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). GIG Technical 

Guidance (GTG) is an evolving web-enabled 

capability providing the technical guidance 

necessary for an interoperable and support 

able 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 4 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.

Interoperability and Supportability Certification. I&S Certification verifies adherence 

to the Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) throughout the 

life cycle by analyzing requirements documents, ISPs, and testing plans for 

appropriate requirements characterization and execution of the five elements 

of the NR-KPP. The requirement for I&S Certification of IT and NSS capabilities for ACAT programs will be determined during the JCIDS process and will 

be updated prior to each milestone and reviewed prior to recertification every 

four years, or when significant changes occur throughout the operational life 

of a system. The Joint Staff, J-6 will perform I&S certification for JROC & JCB 

Interest and Joint Integration documents (CDD and CPD) and the associated 

Information Support Plan (ISP) or Tailored ISP. I&S certification authority is 

delegated to C/S/As for ACAT II and below programs of record without joint 

interface requirements (see CJCSI 6212.01 series).

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 defines the performance 

attributes and creates the framework for identifying the information structure 

necessary to successfully enable the functional capabilities identified in the 

requirements documents. The NR-KPP is composed of five elements: compliant solution architectures, compliance with net-centric data and services strategy, compliance with applicable technical standards and interfaces through 

the GIG technical guidance, compliance with mandatory DoD IA requirements, and DoD supportability requirements. Characterization and execution 

tions, 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 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 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, Milestone B, and annually thereafter. Quarterly SARs may be required 

on an exception basis (see Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 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, ANS/EIA 

748 and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (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 Reports. See DoDI 5000.02, Table 2-1.

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 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 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 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, 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 these 5 elements must be in compliance with DoD policy (see CJCSI 6212.01 

series). 

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 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 GIG Technical Guidance (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 DoD Architecture Framework 

(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 information assurance 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. 

6. 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 work-breakdown 

structure (WBS) that follows the DoD WBS Handbook (MIL-HDBK-881) is required for all EVMrelated 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)

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) 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 5 for the characteristics of the most common contract types. Figure 

6 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 one to two 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.

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 timedriven 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 Program Objective Memorandum (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 analyst 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 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 Engineering & Manufacturing Development but not yet approved for low-rate initial 

production at Milestone C. These funds are normally applied during the 

engineering & manufacturing development 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. 

9. 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).

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 Defense Acquisition Guidebook (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). 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 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.

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 FRP decision review (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 systemlevel 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 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 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 (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 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 

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 developmental, 

operational, and live-fire test and evaluation 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 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 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 sustaninment issues early in a program.

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.

•	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) - DoD Directive 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 Milestone 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 longterm 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, 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, analysis of 

alternatives (AoA), CDD, CPD, TEMP, acquisition program baseline (APB), 

and the contract.

Integrated Defense Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics Life Cycle Management System

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. Milestone 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. Milestone C if equivalent to FRP

8. Milestone C if no Milestone B

9. MAIS whenever an economic analysis is required

10. May be CAIG Assessment at Milestone A

11. ACAT ID only if required by DDR&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. If PDR conducted after MS B, the MDA conducts a 

Post-PDR Assessement

Requirement MDD A B P-CDRA 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

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

Affordability Assessment X X

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

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

AoA Study Guidance X 

Benefit Analysis & Determination1&8 (bundled acquisitions) X

Beyond LRIP Report

2 (include MDAPs that are also MAIS) X

Capability Development Document (CDD)5 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 X X X X

Component Cost Estimate 5&9 (MAIS; optional MDAP) 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 Plan1 X X 

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

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

DoD CIO Confirmation of CCA Compliance (MDAP & MAIS) X X X X

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

Exit Criteria5 X X X X

Industrial Base Capabilities1 (MDAPs only) X X 

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

Independent Technology Readiness Assessment11 X X 

Information Support Plan1&5 X X X 

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)4&5 X X X 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 X X 

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan1 X X X

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

Live Fire T&E Report

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

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

Manpower Estimate (MDAPS only)5 X X X

Market Research1 X X 

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

MDA assessment of chem, bio, rad, and nuc survivability 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

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Report, (If PDR after MS B)15 X 

Post-Critical Design Review (CDR) Report X 

Post Implementation Review X

Program Protection Plan (PPP)1 X X X 

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

Replaced System Sustainment Plan5 (MDAPs only) X 

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR)4&13 

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 

Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) X X X 

Technology Development Strategy X X X 

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)5 X X 

Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) X X X

Test & Evaluation Strategy (TES) X

Milestone/Decision Point

•	Acquisition Approach

	 —Open System Approach

	 —Tailoring

• Source & Related Documents

•	Capability Needs

• Top-Level Integrated Schedule

	 —EMD Top-Level Schedule

	 —MS C & FRP Top-Level Schedule

•	Program Interdependency & Interoperability

Summary

• International Cooperation

•	Risk & Risk Management

• Technology Maturation

• Industrial Capability & Manufacturing

Readiness

	 —Industrial Capability

	 —Elevating Industrial Capability Issues

	 —Industrial & Manufacturing Readiness

	 —Sustaining Industrial Capabilities

•	Business Strategy

	 —Small Business & Small Business

	 Innovation Research

	 		 ◆ Subcontracting Plan/Small Business

	 	 Participation

	 		 ◆ Performance Measurement	 	

◆	Small Business Innovation Research

	 	 Considerations

	 —Contract Approach

	 		 ◆ Performance-Based Business Strategy	 ◆ Modular Contracting

	 		 ◆	Contracting Bundling or Consolidation

	 		 ◆ Major Contract(s) Planned

	 		 ◆ Multi-Year Contracting

	 		 ◆ Contract Incentives

	 		 ◆ Warranties

	 		 ◆ Leasing

	 —Market Research

	 —Competition

• Resource Management

	 —PM Office Staffing & Support

	 	 Contractors

	 —Cost & Funding

	 —Cost Control & CAIV Plan

	 —Earned Value Management

	 —Advanced Procurement

• Program Security Considerations

	 —Information Assurance	

	 —Critical Program Information &

	 	 Program Protection Plan Summary

	 —Anti-Tamper Measures

• Test & Evaluation

• Data Management

	 —Data Management & Technical Data

	 	 Rights

	 —Integrated Data Management

• Life-Cycle Sustainment Planning

• Life-Cycle Signature Support Plan

• Chemical, Biological, Radiological and 

Nuclear Survivability

• Human Resources Integration

• Environment, Safety and Occupational

Health

• Military Equipment Valuation &

Accountability

	 —Proper Financial Accounting

	 	 Treatment for Military Equipment

	 —Accounting Review

• Corrosion Prevention & Control

Figure 2. Acquisition Strategy

(Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 2)

Acquisition

Executive

KM/DS

JROC

Validation &

Approval

FCB

Review

Joint

Staff

 Review

Independent

Sponsor Joint Staff

All other programs

ACAT II & below, no significant joint impact; and no Joint Staff review/

certification required.

Figure 3. JCIDS Document Flow

JCIDS

Analysis

ICD

CDD

CPD

Gatekeeper

(Deputy J-8)

JPD

Decision

ACAT II & III with significant joint impact; and require Joint Staff review/certification.

ACAT II & below, no significant joint impact; but require Joint Staff review/certification.

ACAT I/IA that have a potentially significant impact on interoperability in allied and 

coalition operations

JROC

Interest

Sponsor. The DoD component responsible for all common documentation, periodic reporting, and funding actions required 

to support the requirements and acquisition process.

JPD. Joint Poetntial Designator

JCB. Joint Capability Board

FCB. Functional Capability Board

JCB

Validation &

Approval

FCB

Review

Joint

Staff

 Review

JCB

Interest

Sponsor

Validation &

Approval

Joint

Staff

 Review

Joint

Integration

Joint

Information

Responsibility

Final document to database

KM/DS. Knowledge Management/Decision Support too 

(virtual SIPRNET library for review, approval, and reference).

Acronym List

BES Budget Estimate Submission

DAES Defense Acquisition Executive 

Summary

DCMA Defense Contract Management 

Agency 

DISA Defense Information Systems 

Agency

DOT&E Director, Operational Test and 

Evaluation

DOTMLPF Doctrine, Organization, Training, 

Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel, and Facilities

EVMS Earned Value Management System

FOT&E Follow-On Operational Test and 

Evaluation

JCIDS Joint Capabilities Integration and 

Development System

JITC Joint Interoperability Test 

Command

IOC Initial Operational Capability

IOT&E Initial Operational Test and 

Evaluation

OASD(NII) Office of the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Networks and 

Information Integration 

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution

P-CDRA Post-Critical Design Review 

Assessment

POM Program Objectives Memorandum

R&D Research and Development

T&E Test and Evaluation

Figure 5. 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 

This chart is not a substitute for any official DoD publication.

Recommendations to improve this chart are encouraged and may be sent to wallchart@dau.mil. Version 5.4—June 2010

How to Obtain Copies of this Chart

Download from the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Press Web 

site at https://akss.dau.mil/ifc. Copies can be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office bookstore at http://bookstore.gpo.gov. Military and 

government employees can obtain a single copy from the DAU Publications Distribution Center. Please indicate you would like version 5.4 of 

the DAU Acquisition System Chart.

Mailing address:

Defense Acquisition University

Attention: OP-CL Publications/Distribution

9820 Belvoir Road, Suite G-3

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5565

Stock Number: 008-020-01599-7

Physical address:

Room 7, Bldg 231, at the Defense 

Acquisition University Fort Belvoir 

campus

E-mail: daupubs@dau.mil

ISBN:978-0-16-085874-1

Figure 4. Architecture Viewpoints in DoDAF Ver. 2.0

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 

All Viewpoint

architecture content

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.

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

P H A S E

Figure 6. Contract Type by Phase of the Acquisition Process

A B C

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

FFP • FPI(F) FPI(F) • FFP

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 FPI(F) – Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target

Materiel 

Solution

Analysis