i

INTRODUCTION TO 

DEFENSE ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT

DECEMBER 2008

PUBLISHED BY

DEFENSE ACQUSITION UNIVERSITY PRESS

FORT BELVOIR, VA 22060-5565

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY
i

INTRODUCTION 

TO DEFENSE

ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT

EIGHTH Edition

DECEMBER 2008

Published by the

Defense acquisition university Press

Fort Belvoir, Virginia
ii

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20401-9328

ISBN 0-16-072776-6
iii

PREFACE

This eighth edition of Introduction to Defense Acquisition Management

includes revisions to the regulatory framework for Defense systems acquisition management from the November 2008 Department of Defense 

Instruction 5000.02, and includes policy for determining requirements for 

Defense Systems from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 3170 series, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System.

This pamphlet is designed to be both an introduction to the world of defense systems acquisition management for the newcomer and a summarylevel refresher for the practitioner who has been away from the business 

for a few years. It focuses on Department of Defense-wide management 

policies and procedures, not on the details of any specific defense system. 

The pamphlet is based on numerous source documents. For the reader who 

wishes to dig deeper into this complex area, a list of World Wide Web site 

addresses is provided after the last chapter.

Every attempt has been made to minimize acronyms. Commonly used acronyms are spelled out the first time they are used in each chapter. More 

difficult or rarely used terms are spelled out each time for ease of reading. 

Initial capitalization has been kept to a minimum to increase readability.

We encourage your suggestions and comments. A postage-paid customer 

feedback form is provided at the back of this pamphlet for your convenience. Please take a few minutes to fill it out and help us improve our 

publication.

 Bradford Brown 

 Director, Center for Acquisition and 

 Program Management

 Learning Capabilities Integration Center

 Defense Acquisition University
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors appreciate the comments of interested readers and Defense 

Acquisition University faculty in providing suggestions for this eighth 

edition of Introduction to Defense Acquisition Management. We would 

also like to offer special thanks to the following individuals of the DAU 

Visual Arts and Press: Judith Greig for her editing and proofreading, and 

Jacob Boyer for final preparation of this guidebook and cover design.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

Basics .......................................................................................... 1

Definitions..........................................................................................1

The Role of Congress, the Executive Branch, and 

 Industry in Defense Acquisition ..................................................3

 Executive Branch...........................................................................3

 Legislative Branch.........................................................................3

 American Industry.........................................................................4

Successful Defense Acquisition Program........................................5

Authority for the Defense Acquisition System...............................6

 Public Law.....................................................................................6

 Executive Direction.......................................................................7

Chapter 2

The Acquisition Environment .................................... 8

Transformation of the Department of Defense ..............................8

Transforming Defense Acquisition..................................................9

Transformation Initiatives.............................................................10

Chapter 3

Program Management

in Defense Acquisition................................................... 15

Program Management ...................................................................15

Program Manager ..........................................................................15

 Program Manager’s Perspective..................................................16

 Why is Program Management Used in Defense Acquisition? ....17

 Integrated Product and Process Development.............................17 

 The Program Manager and Integrated Product Teams................17
vi

Chapter 4

Department of Defense

Acquisition Policy........................................................... 18

Department of Defense Directive 5000.01 ....................................18

Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02.................................18

Three Major Decision-Support Systems ......................................19

Acquisition Categories...................................................................20

DoD Space Systems Acquisition Process......................................23

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 

 Knowledge Sharing System......................................................23

Chapter 5

Defense Acquisition Management: 

Key Personnel and Organizations........................ 24

Background.....................................................................................24

 Packard Commission...................................................................24

 Defense Management Review.....................................................24

 Program Executive Officers ........................................................25

Acquisition Program Reporting....................................................25

Component Acquisition Executives...............................................25

 Component Chief Information Officers .....................................26

 Direct Reporting Program Managers ..........................................26

 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

 Technology and Logistics........................................................27

 Defense Acquisition Board .........................................................31

 Information Technology Acquisition Board ...............................31

 Defense Space Acquisition Board...............................................31

 Joint Intelligence Acquisition Board...........................................31 

 Joint Requirements Oversight Council........................................32

Integrated Product Teams ............................................................32

Overarching Integrated Product Teams ......................................32 

Component-Level Oversight..........................................................34
vii

Chapter 6

Determining Joint Warfighting Needs............... 35

The JCIDS Process and Acquisition Decisions............................36

Identifying Needed Capabilities....................................................37

The Sponsor ....................................................................................38

 Joint Potential Designators..........................................................38

 Functional Capability Boards......................................................39

 Gatekeeper...................................................................................39

Interoperability...............................................................................39

Testing of C4I Interoperability Requirements.............................40

Chapter 7

DEFENSE Acquisition Management system........ 42

Acquisition Life Cycle ....................................................................42

 Technological Opportunities and User Needs.............................43

 Entrance and Exit Criteria ...........................................................44

 Evolutionary Acquisition.............................................................44

 Milestones and Phases.................................................................44

Acquisition Strategy Considerations............................................45

 Pre-Systems Acquisition .............................................................45

 Systems Acquisition ....................................................................46

Key Activities ..................................................................................50
viii

Chapter 8

THE Resource Allocation Process........................ 55

Phase I—Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 

 and Execution Process...............................................................56

 On/Off Year Activities.................................................................57

Phase II—Enactment .....................................................................59

Phase III—Apportionment............................................................59

Phase IV—Execution .....................................................................59

World Wide Web SITES ................................................... 61

customer feedback......................................................... 63
1

1

Basics

A basic understanding of the Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition 

system begins with the following overview:

The Defense Acquisition System exists to manage the nation’s 

investments in technologies, programs, and product support 

necessary to achieve the National Security Strategy and support the United States Armed Forces. The investment strategy 

of the Department of Defense shall be postured to support not 

only today’s force, but also the next force, and future forces 

beyond that. The primary objective of Defense acquisition is to 

acquire quality products that satisfy user needs with measurable improvements to mission capability and operational support, in a timely manner, and at a fair and reasonable price. 

(DoD Directive 5000.01)

DEFINITIONS

Acquisition includes design, engineering, test and evaluation, production, 

and operations and support of defense systems. As used herein, the term 

“defense acquisition” generally applies only to weapons and related items 

such as military cargo trucks and information technology systems, processes, procedures, services, and end products. The word procurement, 

which is the act of buying goods and services for the government, is often 

(and mistakenly) considered synonymous with acquisition; it is, instead, 

only one of the many functions performed as part of the acquisition process. For example, many things required by DoD, such as passenger vehicles, office supplies, and waste removal are “procured;” however, they are 

not subject to the full range of regulatory oversight inherent in the acquisition process for weapons, information technology systems, and supporting 

services, so are not described in this publication.
2

Acquisition programs are directed and funded efforts designed to provide 

a new, improved, or continuing materiel,1

 weapon or information system, 

or services capability in response to an approved need.

A weapon system is an item that can be used directly by the Armed Forces 

to carry out combat missions. 

Information technology systems include both national security systems

and automated information systems. National security systems used for 

intelligence and cryptologic activities, and command and control of military forces are integral to a weapons system or critical to the direct fulfillment of a military or intelligence mission. Automated information systems 

are usually associated with the performance of routine administrative and 

business tasks such as payroll and accounting functions. 

Services refer to those contractor services that support and enhance the 

warfighting capabilities of DoD, such as advisory and assistance services.

Management includes a set of tasks required to accomplish a specified 

project. One way of looking at systems acquisition management is by 

looking at individual elements that comprise each of these terms as noted 

below:

System Acquisition Management

• Hardware

• Software

• Logistic Support

 — Manuals

— Facilities

— Personnel

— Training

— Spares

• Design and develop system

• Test

• Produce

• Field

• Support

• Improve or replace

• Dispose of

• Plan

• Organize

• Staff

• Control

• Lead

The program manager (PM) is the individual within DoD chartered to 

manage an acquisition program. Chapter 2 provides more insight on program management.

1 Materiel is a generic word for equipment. It is inherently plural. It is distinguished from material, 

which is what things are made of. Material can be singular or plural. For example, aircraft are materiel; 

the materials aircraft are made of include aluminum, steel, and titanium.
3

The Role of Congress, the Executive Branch, 

and Industry in Defense Acquisition

At the national level, three major top-level participants in defense acquisition are the Executive Branch, Congress, and the defense industry. The 

perspectives, responsibilities, and objectives of these participants are summarized in this chapter.

Executive Branch

Major participants who have significant impact on defense acquisition programs within the Executive Branch are the President, the Office 

of Management and Budget, the National Security Council, and DoD. 

Chapter 5 contains a more detailed discussion of organizations and positions below this top level. The chart below characterizes the perspectives, 

responsibilities, and objectives of the Executive Branch:

Perspectives Responsibilities Objectives

• Formulate, direct & 

execute national 

security policy

• Patriotism

• Personal ambition

• Reelection

• Sign legislation into law 

(President)

• Commander-in-Chief 

(President)

• Negotiate with Congress

• Make decisions on major 

defense acquisition 

programs (the Under 

Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics)

• Issue directives/regulations

• Contract with industry

• Satisfy national security 

objectives

• Maintain a balanced 

force structure

• Field weapon systems 

to defeat threats to 

national security

• Prevent undue 

congressional 

interest/scrutiny

• Eliminate fraud, waste, 

and abuse in federal 

procurement

Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch (Congress) includes the two committees that authorize defense programs, the Senate Armed Services Committee and the 

House Armed Services Committee; the two committees that appropriate 

dollars for defense programs, the House Appropriations Committee and 

Senate Appropriations Committee; the two committees that set spending 

limits for national defense, the Senate and House Budget Committees; 

various committees having legislative oversight of defense activities; 
4

individual members of Congress; the Congressional Budget Office; and 

the Government Accountability Office. The chart below characterizes the 

perspectives, responsibilities, and objectives of the Congress:

Perspectives Responsibilities Objectives

• Constituent interests

• Two-party system

• Checks and balances

• Patriotism

• Personal ambition

• Reelection

• Conduct hearings

• Raise revenue; allocate 

funds

• Pass legislation 

• Oversight and review

• Balance national 

security and social 

needs

• Distribute federal dollars 

by district/state

• Maximize competition

• Control industry profits

• Control fraud, waste, 

and abuse

American Industry

Industry (contractors) includes large and small organizations, both U.S. 

and foreign, providing goods and services to DoD. The chart below characterizes the perspectives, responsibilities, and objectives of the defense 

industry:

Perspectives Responsibilities Objectives

• Stockholders’ interests

• Capitalism

• Patriotism

• Respond to solicitations

• Propose solutions

• Conduct independent 

research and 

development

• Design, produce, support, 

and upgrade defense 

systems

• Profit and growth

• Cash flow

• Market share

• Stability

• Technological 

achievement

Numerous external factors impact and help shape every acquisition program, creating an environment over which no single person has complete 

control. These factors include policies, decisions, reactions, emergencies, 

the media, public sentiment, world opinion, and the ever-present (and 

changing) threats to national security. Often these factors work at opposite 

purposes. Understanding and dealing with the environment they create is 

one of the greatest challenges for defense PMs. Figure 1-1 illustrates some 

of the interrelationships among these key players. This figure also shows 

the PM in the middle of a complex triangle of relationships, faced with the 
5

CONGRESS EXECUTIVE

INDUSTRY

Programs/Budget

Authorizations

Appropriations ($)

Program

Manager

MEDIA

PUBLIC

COURTS

ALLIES

USER

audits/oversight

testimony/reports

regulations/oversight

reports/plans/briefings

policy/regulations/restrictions

national support

legislation/regulation

lobby/PAC

products/services

contracts

Successful Defense Acquisition Program

A successful defense acquisition program places a capable and supportable system in the hands of a user (the warfighter or those who support 

the warfighter), when and where it is needed, at an affordable price. The 

ideal outcome necessary for successful long-term relationships among the 

participants in defense acquisition is “win-win,” wherein each participant 

gains something of value. Depending on your perspective, “success” can 

take many different forms.

•	 For the PM, success means a system that is delivered on time, within 

cost, and meeting the warfighter’s requirements.

•	 For the Office of the Secretary of Defense, success means a program 

that satisfies national security objectives, provides a balanced force 

structure, and does not attract undue congressional scrutiny.

challenge of managing a defense acquisition program in the midst of many 

significant, diverse, and often competing interests.

Figure 1-1. The Program Manager’s Environment
6

•	 For Congress, success means a system that strikes a balance between 

defense and social needs, and provides a fair distribution of defense 

dollars by state/district.

•	 For industry, success means a program that provides a positive cash 

flow, offers a satisfactory return on investment, and preserves the contractor’s competitive position in the industry.

•	 For the warfighter, success means a system that is effective in combat 

and easy to operate and maintain.

Authority for Defense Systems Acquisition

The authority for DoD to conduct defense systems acquisition (i.e., to develop, produce, and field weapons and information technology systems) 

flows from two principal sources: public law (legal basis) and executive 

direction. Executive direction flows from the authority of the President 

and the federal government’s executive agencies to issue orders and regulations to enforce and facilitate the law and to carry out the constitutional 

duties of the executive branch.

Public Law

Statutory authority from the Congress provides the legal basis for systems 

acquisition. Some of the most prominent laws impacting defense systems 

acquisition follow:

•	 Small Business Act (1963), as amended

•	 Competition in Contracting Act (1984)

•	 Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (GoldwaterNichols)

•	 Government Performance and Results Act (1993)

•	 Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994
7

•	 Annual authorization and appropriations legislation, which may contain substantial new or amended statutory requirements (like the FY 

2006 requirement for certification of major defense acquisition programs prior to program initiation).

Most provisions of the laws listed above have been codified in Title 10, 

United States Code, Armed Forces.

Executive Direction

Authority and guidance also come from the Executive Branch in the form 

of executive orders and national security decision directives issued by the 

President as well as other agency regulations. Examples of executive direction follow:

•	 Executive Order 12352 (1982) directed procurement reforms and establishment of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

•	 Federal Acquisition Regulation (1984) provided uniform policies and 

procedures for the procurement of all goods and services by executive 

agencies of the federal government. Additional guidance for defense 

acquisition programs is provided in the DoD Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement (DFARS).

•	 National Security Decision Directive 219 (1986) directed implementation of recommendations of the President’s Blue Ribbon Commission 

on Defense Management.

•	 Executive Order 13101 (1998) implemented the provisions of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to ensure federal agency 

use of environmentally preferable products and services, and directed 

the use of cost-effective procurement preference programs (sometimes 

called “green procurement”) favoring the purchase of these products 

and services.

•	 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, (2008, updated annually) describes the process for preparation and submission of budget estimates; strategic plans; annual performance plans; and the planning, budgeting, and acquisition of capital assets for all executive 

departments.
8

2

The Acquisition

Environment

Transformation of the Department of Defense

The war on terrorism has taught us that future threats to our national security will come from many diverse areas—domestic and international 

terrorists, state- and non-state-sponsored threats, computer hackers, and 

others.

In the varied and highly uncertain future security environment 

that we expect, potential adversaries will increasingly benefit 

from technology diffusion and access to advanced weapon systems. Complex and adaptive adversaries will likely employ—

singly or in combinations—traditional, irregular, disruptive, 

and catastrophic methods intended to keep the future joint 

force from being successful across the range of military operations.2

To help prepare for an uncertain and dangerous future, the 2003 

Transformation Planning Guidance provided a strategy for transforming 

“how we fight, how we do business, and how we work with others.” The 

2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) provided new direction for accelerating the transformation of the Department to focus on the needs of 

the combatant commanders3

 and to develop portfolios of joint capabilities 

rather than stovepiped acquisition programs. The 2008 National Defense 

Strategy stresses the importance of winning the Long War.

2 Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, Version 2.0, Joint Experimentation Transformation and 

Concepts Division, August 2005. Available at <www.dtic.mil/jointfuturewarfare>. 3 Combatant commanders are the commanders of the United Commands responsible for fighting 

the nation’s wars. 
9

For the foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the 

U.S. ... Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning 

this conflict, but it alone will not bring victory. We face a clash 

of arms, a war of ideas, and an assistance effort that will require patience and innovation.4

Transforming How We Fight. Transforming how we fight hinges on 

the development of future joint warfighting concepts and includes the full 

range of military capability areas: doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF). 

Chapter 6, Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, addresses the process for assessment of DOTMLPF gaps in warfighting capability, and the relationship to the acquisition of defense systems for the 

materiel capability area. 

Transforming How We Do Business. A priority for the Department is 

the transformation of the acquisition process. The latest acquisition policies and procedures, summarized in chapters 4 and 6, provide insight on 

the implementation of evolutionary acquisition to reduce cycle time and 

field an initial increment of warfighting capability as fast as possible. 

Transforming How We Work With Others. The defense systems acquisition process must support arrangements for international military cooperation so that U.S. warfighting capabilities can be applied effectively with 

the capabilities of our allied and coalition partners.

Transforming Defense Acquisition

Perhaps the most notable changes in defense systems acquisition were 

caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the terrorist attack on 

the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. These 

major world events impacted national objectives, treaties, budgets, and 

alliances. The specter of strategic thermonuclear war lessened while the 

probability of regional conflicts and policing actions increased. Domestic 

terrorism, information warfare, and narcotics control are becoming increasingly troublesome threats to national security, and the Department is 

playing an ever-increasing role in confronting these issues.

4 National Defense Strategy, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, June 2008. 
10

The defense industrial base has gone through a metamorphosis. Weaker 

competitors have merged with stronger companies or have dropped out of 

the market. The remaining large contractors are positioning themselves 

with other major contractors to compete for the remaining defense contracts. For example, in 1982 there were 10 major U.S. producers of fixedwing military aircraft. Today there are only three: Boeing, LockheedMartin, and Northrop-Grumman. As a result of this reduced industrial 

base, the Department is working to bring about greater civilian/military 

industrial integration.

During 2005 and 2006, a series of studies were conducted resulting in 

a number of recommendations for transforming the defense acquisition 

process. Congress considered the results of these studies to be important 

enough to require periodic reports to Congress on the status of the recommendations. The studies were as follows:

•	 The Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel (DAPA) 

Report, January 2006;

•	 The Defense Science Board 2005 Summary Study: Transformation: A 

Progress Assessment, Volume 1, February 2006;

•	 The Center for Strategic and International Studies Phase 2 Report,

Beyond Goldwater-Nichols: U.S. Government and Defense Reform 

for a New Strategic Era, July 2005;

•	 The Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 6, 2006. 

These studies contained numerous major recommendations for improving 

defense systems acquisition. A few of the major initiatives related to these 

recommendations are highlighted here.

Transformation Initiatives

Improve and Empower the Acquisition Neighborhood. The Department 

developed rapid acquisition training capabilities for high-priority initiatives such as the Requirements Training and Certification Program, Rapid 

Acquisition, Continuous Process Improvement–Lean Six Sigma (LSS), 

and other initiatives. In response to a gap assessment, an international career path and training program was developed for personnel supporting 

international programs. In 2007, the Department implemented a robust 
11

AT&L webcast capability and has deployed learning sessions led by senior leaders addressing priority initiatives. The USD(AT&L) deployed 

a new learning asset—the Living Library at the Defense Acquisition 

University—to share expert knowledge and unique lessons learned on key 

acquisition practices such as the Configuration Steering Board, competition and prototyping, and other best practices. Success of this initiative is 

defined as government representatives who act in an unbiased manner in 

evaluating all courses of action and who constantly attack regulations and 

bureaucratic impediments to more effectively and efficiently deliver value 

for the warfighter.

Configuration Steering Boards (CSBs). Military departments are establishing CSBs for every current and future ACAT I (see Chapter 4) program in development. The CSBs will review all requirements changes and 

any significant technical configuration changes that have the potential to 

result in cost and schedule impacts to the program. Such changes will generally be rejected, deferring them to future blocks or increments. Changes 

may not be approved unless funds are identified and schedule impacts mitigated.

Competition and Prototyping. Revisions to acquisition policy in 2008 

require competitive, technically mature prototyping. Pending and future 

programs will provide for two or more competing teams to produce prototypes through Milestone B, engineering, manufacturing, development, 

and demonstration. The intent of this policy is to rectify problems of inadequate technology maturity and a lack of understanding of the critical 

program development path. This initiative will help ensure technology 

maturity prior to Milestone B and facilitate the ability of the Milestone 

Decision Authority to certify that the technology in the program has been 

demonstrated in a relevant environment.

Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms. The Department is taking steps 

to develop and provide program executive officers and program managers 

more tangible incentives, actionable requirements, guidance, and analytical tools to make better-informed decisions concerning technology investments and design decisions affecting the fuel demand of their programs 

without negatively impacting performance requirements. 
12

Capability Portfolio Management. The Department of Defense uses capability portfolio management to advise the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

and the heads of DoD components on how to optimize capability investments across the defense enterprise and minimize risk in meeting the 

Department’s capability needs in support of strategy. 

Systems Engineering Excellence. The Department has created a Systems 

and Software Engineering Center of Excellence and published policy 

guidance documents to assist the Defense Acquisition Workforce in the 

development of systems engineering plans, education, and training. This 

policy guidance institutionalizes best practices, applies performance incentives, and makes systems and software engineering significant factors 

in the acquisition process. 

Technology Readiness Assessments. A central acquisition process theme 

is that technology should be “mature” before system development begins. 

For technology to be considered mature, it must have been applied in a prototype article, tested in a relevant or operational environment, and found 

to have performed adequately for the intended application. This implies 

a need for a measure of technology maturity and for a process to ensure 

that only sufficiently mature technology is used. Technology Readiness 

Assessments are used by DoD to verify technology maturity in a rigorous 

fashion. 

Requirements Management Certification Training. Section 801 of the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 

required the USD(AT&L), in consultation with the Defense Acquisition 

University, to develop a training program to certify military and civilian 

personnel of DoD with responsibility for generating requirements for Major 

Defense Acquisition Programs. The Joint Staff and the Defense Acquisition 

University developed a Requirements Management Certification Training 

Program for military and civilian requirements managers. The certification 

program is a three-tiered construct. Level I (Basic) Certification consists 

of the Capabilities-Based Planning Continuous Learning Module, which 

came online October 12, 2007. Level II (Intermediate) Certification consists of a Distance Learning Module, which came online on July 28, 2008. 

An additional Level III (Advanced) one-week resident course is also being 

considered for development.

Rapid Reaction Process. The Department’s joint rapid acquisition 

processes are being expanded and institutionalized by the Joint Rapid 
13

Acquisition Cell (JRAC) created in 2006. The JRAC established a community of interest among rapid acquisition stakeholders and developed an 

initial Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) application process resident 

on the Joint Staff Knowledge-Management/Decision-Support Tool. The 

JRAC established the JUON working groups, with cross-Departmental 

membership, to expeditiously develop solutions to validate JUONs from 

Combatant Commands. Specifically, the JRAC interfaces with Combatant 

Commanders through the Joint Staff to address unique joint warfighting 

needs.

Item Unique Identifier. Item unique identification (IUID) provides for 

marking personal property items with a machine-readable Unique Item 

Identifier (UII), which is a set of globally unique data elements. The UII 

is used in functional automated information systems to value and track 

DoD items through their life cycle. The Department maintains a registry 

of items marked with UIIs that provides accurate and accessible unique 

identification and pedigree information about the items. This information 

is used to ensure that accurate acquisition, repair, and deployment of items 

is efficient and effective.

Lean Six Sigma/Continuous Process Improvement. LSS has been designated as the process improvement methodology to support DoD’s business transformation efforts because of its balanced approach and widerange applicability. LSS combines the principles of Lean (reducing and 

eliminating non-value-added activities) with Six Sigma (reducing variation, increasing quality) to improve process efficiency and process effectiveness. Any process, whether it be manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, 

information technology, administration, or service can be improved by 

using the LSS approach. LSS can also be applied to design a process or 

conduct experimentation. 

There are many more initiatives in place, and new ones are being tested 

throughout the Department. These initiatives will help America acquire 

quality defense systems faster and at an affordable cost—and this is essential if this country is to maintain the world’s best warfighting forces. 

The cultural shifts in the acquisition process may be characterized by the 

following chart:
14

Changes in Emphasis

Characteristics of Defense Systems 

acquisition in the past included:

Today the emphasis has shifted 

toward:

• Many new systems

• Focus on nuclear warfare

• Technology-driven systems

• Service-specific programs

• Military-unique technology

• Technology development

• Fewer new systems; modified legacy 

systems 

• Conventional warfare 

• Affordability-driven systems

• Joint programs

• Commercial and dual-use technology

• Technology insertion
15

3

Program

Management in

Defense Acquisition

Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires that a program manager5

be designated for each acquisition program. The role of the PM is to direct the development, production, and initial deployment (as a minimum) 

of a new defense system. This must be done within limits of cost, schedule, and performance, as approved by the PM’s acquisition executive (see 

Chapter 5). The PM’s role, then, is to be the agent of the military service 

or Defense agency in the defense acquisition system to ensure the warfighter’s modernization requirements are met efficiently and effectively in 

the shortest possible time.

Program Management

The process whereby a single leader exercises centralized authority and responsibility for planning, organizing, staffing, 

controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating/

assigned civilian and military personnel and organizations, 

for the management of a specific defense acquisition program 

or programs, through development, production, deployment, 

operations, support, and disposal. (DAU Glossary)

Program Manager 

The designated individual with responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs. 

The Program Manager shall be accountable for credible cost, 

5 The title program manager is used broadly here. Some DoD components may use different titles, 

such as program director, project manager, product manager, and others.
16

schedule, and performance reporting to the Milestone Decision 

Authority. (DoDD 5000.01)

Program management must first take into account diverse interests and 

points of view. Second, it facilitates tailoring the management system and 

techniques to the uniqueness of the program. Third, it represents integration of a complex system of differing but related functional disciplines6

that must work together to achieve program goals.

Program Manager’s Perspective

The effective PM should have the big-picture perspective of the program, 

including in-depth knowledge of the interrelationships among its elements. 

An effective PM:

•	 Is a leader and a manager, not primarily a task “doer;”

•	 Understands the requirements, environmental factors, organizations,

activities, constraints, risks, and motivations impacting the program;

•	 Knows and is capable of working within the established framework,

managerial systems, and processes that provide funding and other decisions for the program to proceed;

•	 Comprehends and puts to use the basic skills of management—planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling—so people and 

systems harmonize to produce the desired results;

•	 Coordinates the work of defense industry contractors, consultants, inhouse engineers, logisticians, contracting officers, and others, whether 

assigned directly to the program office or supporting it through some 

form of integrated product team or matrix support arrangement;

•	 Builds support for the program and monitors reactions and perceptions that help or impede progress;

•	 Serves both the military needs of the user in the field and the priority and funding constraints imposed by managers in the Pentagon and 

military service/defense agency headquarters.

6 Functional disciplines refer to business and financial management, logistics, systems engineering, 

software management, test and evaluation, manufacturing management, and others.
17

Why is Program Management Used in Defense Acquisition?

Program management provides for a single point of contact, the PM, who 

is the major force for directing the system through its evolution, including design, development, production, deployment, operations and support, 

and disposal. The PM, while perhaps being unable to control the external 

environment, has management authority over business and technical aspects of a specific program. The PM has one responsibility only—managing the program—and accountability is clear. The defense industry typically follows a management process similar to that used by DoD. Often 

contractors will staff and operate their program office to parallel that of the 

government program they support.

Integrated Product and Process Development

Integrated product and process development is a management process that 

integrates all activities from the concept of a new defense system through 

the entire life cycle (see Chapter 7), using multidisciplinary teams, called

integrated product teams. 

The Program Manager and Integrated Product Teams

An integrated product team is composed of representatives from all the 

functional disciplines that have a stake in program success, working together with a team leader to facilitate management of acquisition programs. Integrated product teams exist at the oversight and review levels 

(see Chapter 5), as well as at the program office level. Program officelevel integrated product teams may be structured around the major design 

aspects of the system under development, such as an “engine integrated product team,” or processes, such as a “test integrated product team.” 

Following contract award, program-level integrated product teams often 

include contractor participation.

DoD has recognized the importance of integrated product teams as a means 

to aid the PM and as a way to streamline the decision process. With the 

use of cross-functional teams, issues can be identified and resolved more 

quickly, and stakeholder involvement in the overall success of the program can be maximized. In this way, the PM capitalizes on the strengths 

of all the stakeholders in the defense acquisition system.
18

4

Department of

Defense Acquisition

Policy

Two major Department of Defense (DoD) regulatory documents guide the 

management of defense acquisition:

DoD Directive 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, approved by the 

Deputy Secretary of Defense, provides a basic set of definitions and three 

overarching policies that govern the defense acquisition system: flexibility, responsiveness, and innovation. In addition, a minimum set of more 

detailed policies is provided in a tightly structured format for ease of reading and understanding.

DoD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System—

approved by the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics (USD[AT&L]), the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks 

and Information Integration, and the DoD Director for Operational Test 

and Evaluation—establishes a simplified and flexible management framework for translating mission needs and technological opportunities into 

stable, affordable, and well-managed acquisition programs. DoDI 5000.02 

establishes a general approach for managing all defense acquisition programs while authorizing the program manger and the milestone decision authority to exercise discretion and prudent business judgment to 

structure a tailored, responsive, and innovative program. The Defense 

Acquisition University groups oversight of the acquisition process into 

three primary decision support systems: the Joint Capabilities Integration 

and Development System (JCIDS); the Defense Acquisition System; and 

the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process (as 

depicted in Figure 4-1).
19

Figure 4-1. Three Major Decision-Support Systems

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting &

Execution

Process

Joint Capabilities

Integration &

Development

System

Defense

Acquisition

 System 

Effective Interaction

Essential for Success

Three Major Decision-Support Systems

These three decision-support systems must interface on a regular basis to 

enable the leadership to make informed decisions regarding the best allocation of scarce resources. These decision-support systems are discussed 

in Chapters 6, 7, and 8, respectively.

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, governed by 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01, is the system 

that results in identifying and documenting warfighting needs (i.e., mission deficiencies or technological opportunities). 

The Defense Acquisition System, governed by the DoD 5000 series of regulatory documents, establishes a management framework for translating 

the needs of the warfighter and technological opportunities into reliable, 

affordable, and sustainable systems.

The Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process, governed 

by DoD Directive 7045.14 and the DoD Financial Management Regulation 
20

Category Criteria for Designation Decision Authority

ACAT I • Major Defense Acquisition 

Programs

 - RDT&E total expenditure 

 of more that $365M, or

 - Procurement total 

 expenditure of more than 

 $2.190B 

• MDA designation as special 

interest

• ACAT ID: USD(AT&L)

 - Reviewed by the Defense 

 Acquisition Board (DAB)

• ACAT IC: Component head, 

or Component Acquisition 

Executive (CAE) (cannot be 

further delegated)

 - Reviewed by component 

 HQ

ACAT II • Does not meet ACAT I criteria

• Major System

 - RDT&E total expenditure 

 of more than $140M, or

 - Procurement total 

 expenditure of more than 

 $660M

• MDA designation

• CAE or the individual 

designated by the CAE

• Reviewed IAW component 

policy

ACAT III • Does not meet ACAT II or 

above criteria

• Designated by the CAE at the 

lowest appropriate level

• Reviewed in accordance with 

component policy

DoD 7045.14-R, prescribes the process for making decisions on funding 

for every element of the Department, including acquisition programs.

Acquisition Categories

For management purposes, all defense acquisition programs fall into one 

of the acquisition categories (ACATs) shown in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. The 

ACAT level is principally based on dollar value and level of milestone decision authority. The chain of authority and organizational players affecting various ACATs are discussed in Chapter 5. 

Figure 4-2. Acquisition Categories, Weapons Systems 

(amounts in FY2000 constant dollars)

Weapons Systems. The ACAT designations for weapons systems are 

shown in Figure 4-2. Weapons systems typically include weapons and 

support equipment (like trucks); and command, control, communications, 

intelligence, and surveillance systems.
21

Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAP) are ACAT I programs. 

There are two subcategories of ACAT I programs:

•	 ACAT ID. The milestone decision authority is the USD(AT&L). The 

“D” refers to the Defense Acquisition Board. These programs require a 

review by an office of the Secretary of Defense Overarching Integrated 

Product Team and the Defense Acquisition Board. The USD(AT&L), 

as the Defense Acquisition Executive, makes the final decision.

•	 ACAT IC, for which the milestone decision authority is the Component 

Acquisition Executive (CAE). The “C” refers to component7

. Each 

component has its own process for headquarters review of these programs prior to a milestone decision by the CAE.

ACAT II programs are those programs that do not meet the criteria for an 

ACAT I program but do meet the criteria for a major system. The milestone decision authority for these programs is also the CAE. The review 

process for these programs is similar to that of ACAT IC programs.

ACAT III programs are those programs that do not meet the criteria for 

ACAT I, ACAT IA, or ACAT II. The milestone decision authority is designated by the CAE. Milestone decisions for these programs are typically 

made at the Program Executive Officer or Systems Command (Navy and 

Marine Corps), Major Subordinate Command (Army), or Product Center 

(Air Force) level. 

In addition to the three ACATs shown here, the Department of the Navy 

also uses an ACAT IV designation. Navy or Marine Corps Program 

Executive Offices, commanders of the Systems Command, and direct-reporting program managers (PMs) designate ACAT IV programs and may 

delegate milestone decision authority for such programs to a designated 

flag officer, Senior Executive Service official, or to the PM.

Automated Information Systems. ACAT designations for automated information systems are shown in Figure 4-3. An automated information 

system is a system of computer hardware, software, data, or telecommunications that performs functions such as collecting, processing, storing, 

transmitting, and displaying information. Excluded are computer resources that are part of a weapon system or a highly classified program. 

7 DoD components are the military departments, defense agencies, and unified commands.
22

Figure 4-3. Acquisition Categories, Automated Information Systems

(amounts in FY2000 constant dollars)

Major automated information system acquisition programs are ACAT IA 

programs. There are two subcategories of ACAT IA programs:

•	 ACAT IAM, for which the milestone decision authority is the 

USD(AT&L) or, if delegated, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Networks and Information Integration. The “M” refers to major automated information systems reviewed by the Information Technology 

Acquisition Board. 

•	 ACAT IAC, for which the milestone decision authority is delegated to 

the component. The “C” refers to component. After the appropriate 

headquarters review, the CAE makes the final milestone decision.

Category Criteria for Designation Decision Authority

ACAT IA • Major Automated Information 

System (MAIS)

 - Designated by the MDA as 

 an MAIS, or 

 - Is estimated to exceed:

 * Program costs in any 

 single FY (all 

 appropriations), $32M, or

 * Total program costs (all 

 appropriations) from 

 beginning of Concept 

 Refinement through 

 deployment at all sites, 

 $126M, or

 * Total life cycle costs (all 

 appropriations), $378M 

• MDA designation as special 

interest

• ACAT IAM: 

 - USD(AT&L) or designee 

 - Reviewed by the 

 Information Technology 

 Acquisition Board (ITAB)

• ACAT IAC: Component head, 

or Component Acquisition 

Executive (CAE) (cannot be 

further delegated)

 - Reviewed by component 

 HQ

ACAT II • Does not apply to MAIS 

programs

• N/A

ACAT III • Does not meet ACAT IA (MAIS) 

criteria

• Designated by the CAE at the 

lowest appropriate level

• Reviewed in accordance with 

component policy
23

The ACAT II designation does not apply to automated information systems. ACAT III automated information systems are those that do not meet 

the criteria for ACAT IA.

DoD Space Systems Acquisition Process

Management oversight of national security space systems has been delegated to the Under Secretary of the Air Force. National Security Space 

Acquisition Policy 03-01, December 27, 2004, provides policies and procedures for oversight of space-based systems (satellites), ground-based 

systems (satellite command and control and other ground stations), satellite launch systems (boosters and space launch facilities), and user equipment. This policy generally parallels that of the DoDI 5000.02 mentioned 

earlier, with slightly different terms and streamlined processes appropriate 

for high-technology, small-quantity space systems. The USD(AT&L) is 

the milestone decision authority for ACAT ID space programs, unless he/

she delegates to the Air Force.

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Knowledge Sharing System

In addition to the regulatory documents mentioned throughout this pamphlet, the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Knowledge Sharing 

System (AKSS) can be accessed at <http://akss.dau.mil>. AKSS, with 

links to acquisition-related communities of practice, acquisition commands/organizations, and valuable reference material, provides a complete Web-based source of information for the acquisition community. 
24

5

Defense Acquisition

Systems Management: 

Key Personnel and

Organizations

Background

Packard Commission

The President’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, chaired 

by former Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard, conducted a comprehensive review of the overall defense acquisition system. Reporting 

to then-President Reagan in early 1986, the Packard Commission recommended the creation of a single top-level Defense Acquisition Executive 

responsible for the defense acquisition process, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD[AT&L]), and 

establishment of a streamlined reporting chain from program managers 

(PMs) of major defense acquisition programs to that top-level executive. 

President Reagan approved the Commission’s recommendations and directed their implementation in National Security Decision Directive 219 

on April 1, 1986.

Defense Management Review

A follow-on assessment of defense acquisition management was initiated by then-President George Bush in 1989. The report of the Defense 

Management Review reiterated the Packard Commission findings and reinforced the importance of the streamlined reporting chain for all PMs. 

This reporting chain provides for no more than two levels of management oversight between the PM and the milestone decision authority for 

all acquisition programs. The reporting chain for any particular program 

is a function of the program’s size and acquisition category (ACAT). (See 

Chapter 4 for a discussion of ACATs.)
25

This structure provides a clear line of authority running from the 

USD(AT&L), through Component Acquisition Executives and Program 

Executive Officers (PEOs), to the individual PMs of ACAT ID and ACAT 

IAM programs. 

Program Executive Officers

The position of PEO was established in 1986 based on the Packard 

Commission Report. A PEO is typically a general officer or Senior 

Executive Service (SES) civilian-equivalent responsible for the firstline supervision of a group of like programs, each managed by a PM. 

Examples are the Army’s PEO for Ground Combat Systems, the Navy’s 

PEO for Tactical Aircraft Programs, and the Air Force’s PEO for Combat 

and Mission Support. The number of PEOs varies by Service and over 

time, but typically, the Services have between 5 and 12 PEOs at any one 

time. Current policy provides that PEOs may not have any other command 

responsibilities unless a waiver is obtained from the USD(AT&L). The 

Army and the Air Force have obtained waivers and, in some cases, have 

dual-hatted the commanders of their respective acquisition commands as 

PEO.

Acquisition Program Reporting

The reporting structure for ACAT ID and ACAT IAM acquisition programs is illustrated in Figure 5-1 on the next page.

 Component Acquisition Executives 

The senior official in each DoD component responsible for acquisition 

matters is known as the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE). The 

CAE is the secretary of the military department, or the head of the defense 

agency, with power of re-delegation. In the military departments, the secretaries have delegated this responsibility to the assistant secretary level, 

commonly called the Service Acquisition Executives (SAEs). The SAE for 

the Army is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics 

and Technology. The Department of the Navy SAE (includes Marine 

Corps) is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, 

and Acquisition. The SAE for the Air Force is the Assistant Secretary of 

the Air Force for Acquisition. The SAE reports to the appropriate secretary administratively and to the USD(AT&L) for acquisition management 

matters. Each SAE also serves as the senior procurement executive for 
26

his or her military department. In this capacity, the SAEs are responsible 

for management direction of their respective Service procurement system. 

Many of the defense agencies and some of the combatant commands also 

have acquisition executives. 

ACAT ID and ACAT IAM programs reviewed by the USD(AT&L) and 

programs reviewed by the components follow the same basic management 

oversight process, but the final decision authority is at a lower level for the 

latter programs. 

Component Chief Information Officers

The DoD components each have chief information officers (CIOs) who 

provide advice and assistance to the CAE for the oversight and review of 

automated information systems acquisition programs. 

Direct-Reporting Program Managers 

Some PMs do not report to a PEO but instead report directly to the CAE. 

ACAT ID/IAM

Programs

Under Secretary of

Defense (AT&L)

Milestone Decision Authority

for ACAT IAM may be delegated

to ASD(NII)

Component

Acquisition

Executive

(CAE)

Component

Acquisition

Executive

(CAE)

Program

Executive

Officer (PEO)

Program

Executive

Officer (PEO)

Program

Manager (PM)

Program

Manager (PM)

Defense Acquisition

Executive (DAE)

Defense Acquisition

Executive (DAE)

Asst Secretary or Equivalent

General Officer/SES Civilian

Col/LtCol/Civilian Equivalent

(see note)

Note: some PM’s do not report through a PEO

Figure 5-1. DoD Acquisition Authority Chain
27

These direct-reporting PMs are typically one- or two-star officers or SES 

civilian-equivalents who manage priority programs of such a nature that direct access to the CAE is deemed appropriate. Examples are the Department 

of the Army’s PM for Future Combat Systems (Brigade Combat Team) 

and the Department of the Navy’s PM for Strategic Systems. 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics

Title 10, United States Code, §133, authorizes the position of USD(AT&L). 

The USD(AT&L) is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary 

and Deputy Secretary of Defense for all matters relating to the DoD acquisition system: research and development; advanced technology; developmental test and evaluation; production; logistics; installation management; military construction; procurement; environment security; and 

nuclear, chemical, and biological matters. The USD(AT&L) serves as the 

Defense Acquisition Executive and, for acquisition matters, takes precedence over the secretaries of the military departments. The USD(AT&L) 

also establishes policy for the training and career development of the 

Defense Acquisition Workforce.

The organization of the Office of the USD(AT&L) has changed over 

time to reflect the policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

Currently, the office has the following major subordinate staff elements. 

•	 Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition & Technology (DUSD[A&T]): 

Oversees acquisition and contracting policy, and provides oversight 

for major defense acquisition programs. The DUSD(A&T) supervises 

the following: 

- Deputy Under Secretary for Industrial Policy;

- Director, Small Business Programs;

- Director, Systems and Software Engineering;

- Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition;

- Director, Joint Advanced Concepts;

- Director, Defense Procurement & Acquisition Policy & 

 Strategic Sourcing;

- President, Defense Acquisition University;

- Director, Defense Contract Management Agency.
28

•	 Director, Defense Research and Engineering: Principal advisor to the 

USD(AT&L) for scientific and technical matters, and supervises the 

following:

•	

- Deputy Under Secretary for International Security Policy;

- Deputy Under Secretary for Advanced Systems and Concepts;

- Deputy Under Secretary for Science and Technology;

- Deputy Under Secretary for Laboratory and Basic Sciences;

- Director, Plans and Programs;

- Director, Rapid Reaction Technology Office;

- Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency;

- Director, Defense Technical Information Center.

•	 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Material 

Readiness: Oversees policy for acquisition logistics, readiness, maintenance, and transportation; and supervises the following:

- Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Supply Chain Integration;

- Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Maintenance Policy;

- Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Transportation Policy;

- Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Materiel Readiness;

- Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Program Support;

- Director, Defense Logistics Agency.

•	 Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, Nuclear, Biological and 

Chemical Defense Programs: Principal staff assistant and advisor to 

the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) 

for all matters concerning the formulation of policy and plans for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. 

•	 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation: 

Leads business transformation for DoD, working across the military 

services and defense agencies to drive rapid transformation of business 

processes and systems to ensure improved support to the warfighter 

and improved financial accountability. He or she also oversees the 

Business Transformation Agency, the organization accountable for 

delivery of common processes and systems supporting logistics, acquisition, finance, and personnel activity across DoD.

•	 Director, Missile Defense Agency: The Missile Defense Agency’s 

mission is to develop an integrated ballistic missile defense system to 
29

defend the United States. The director is the acquisition executive for 

all ballistic missile defense programs and systems. PMs report directly 

to the director, who is the milestone decision authority for programs 

and systems in development.

•	 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense forInstallations and Environment: 

Provides installation assets and services necessary to support the military forces in a cost-effective, safe, sustainable, and environmentally 

sound manner.

Other officials who report directly to the USD(AT&L) are:

- Director, Human Capital Initiatives (also serves as president, 

 DAU);

- Director, International Cooperation;

- Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis;

- Director, Space and Intelligence Capabilities;

- Director, Test Resource Management Center;

- Director, Administration;

- Executive Director, Defense Science Board;

- Director, Special Programs;

- Director, Missile Defense Agency.

Some of the above-listed officials deal with PMs, PEOs, and CAEs on a 

regular basis. For example:

•	 Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy: Oversees 

contracting policy and procedures; chairs the Defense Acquisition 

Regulatory Council, which issues the Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement and represents the USD(AT&L) on the Federal 

Acquisition Regulatory Council; provides the chair of the Defense 

Acquisition Policy Working Group that oversees the DoD 5000 series 

of acquisition regulations. 

•	 Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis: Oversees the Defense 

Acquisition Executive Summary and the earned value management 

system processes, and provides the executive secretariat for the 

Defense Acquisition Board.

•	 Director, Portfolio Systems Acquisition: Responsible for review of 

ACAT ID programs prior to the Defense Acquisition Board. Chairs 
30

the weapon systems overarching integrated product teams that advise 

the Defense Acquisition Board.

•	 Director, Systems and Software Engineering: Reviews systems engineering plans for ACAT ID programs and provides policy and oversight of developmental test and evaluation activities within the departments and agencies.

In addition to the above, there are several other offices that play a critical 

role in defense acquisition management. These are:

•	 Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 

Integration/DoD Chief Information Officer: The ASD(NII)/DoD CIO 

is the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense 

and Deputy Secretary of Defense on networks and network-centric 

policies and concepts; command and control; communications; nonintelligence space matters; enterprise-wide integration of DoD information matters; information technology, including national security 

systems; information resources management; spectrum management; 

network operations; information systems; information assurance; positioning, navigation, and timing policy, including airspace and military air traffic control activities; sensitive information integration; contingency support and migration planning; and related matters. When 

delegated by the USD(AT&L), the ASD(NII) chairs the Information 

Technology Acquisition Board (ITAB) and makes milestone decisions on ACAT IAM programs.

•	 Director, Operational Test and Evaluation: Responsible for operational and live-fire test and evaluation policy and procedures. Analyzes 

results of operational test and evaluation conducted on ACAT I programs and other selected programs deemed of a high enough priority 

to be selected for defense-level oversight. Reports to the Secretary of 

Defense, the USD(AT&L), and the Senate and House Committees on 

Authorizations and Appropriations as to whether test results on selected ACAT I programs indicate the system is operationally effective and suitable. This office also provides a live-fire test and evaluation report to the Secretary of Defense, the USD(AT&L), and the 

Senate and House Committees on Authorizations and Appropriations 

on whether covered systems (primarily ACAT I and ACAT II systems) meet survivability and lethality requirements. 
31

Several boards/councils are key players in defense systems acquisition:

Defense Acquisition Board

The DAB is the senior-level defense forum for advising the USD(AT&L) 

on critical issues concerning ACAT ID programs. Formal meetings may 

be held at each milestone to review accomplishments of the previous 

phase and to assess readiness to proceed into the next. The DAB is issue-oriented. Typical issues addressed include cost growth, schedule delays, and technical threshold breaches. The result of a DAB review is a 

decision from the USD(AT&L), documented in an Acquisition Decision 

Memorandum. The USD(AT&L) chairs the DAB and the co-chair of the 

DAB is the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Information Technology Acquisition Board

The ITAB advises the USD(AT&L) on critical acquisition decisions for 

ACAT IAM programs. The USD(AT&L) may delegate the responsibility 

for chairing the ITAB for selected ACAT IAM programs to the ASD(NII). 

An ADM documents the decision(s) resulting from the review.

Defense Space Acquisition Board (DSAB)

A DSAB is convened at each decision point for ACAT ID space acquisition programs to assess the readiness of these programs to proceed into the 

next phase of the acquisition process. The USD(AT&L) chairs the DSAB 

and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the co-chair. DSAB 

principals are advisors and representatives of entities who have a material interest in the program under consideration. An Acquisition Decision 

Memorandum documents the decision(s) resulting from the review.

Joint Intelligence Acquisition Board (JIAB)

For National Intelligence Program-funded programs executed within DoD, 

the JIAB is co-chaired by the Deputy Director for National Intelligence for 

Management and the USD(AT&L). The intelligence community acquisition model is very similar to DoD’s (see Intelligence Community Policy 

Guidance 105.1). The JIAB members include representatives from the 

DoD chief information officer for information technology architecture and 

information integration; and the Joint Staff, J-8, for requirements; and may 

call upon others like the Component Acquisition Executives for advice.
32

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) 

The JROC leads the Joint Staff in developing policies and procedures for 

determining warfighting capability needs, and validates and approves these 

needs for ACAT I and ACAT IA programs. The JROC is chaired by the 

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Members are the vice chiefs of 

staff of the Army and Air Force, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and 

the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps.

Integrated Product Teams 

The defense integrated product team (IPT) concept was adapted from commercial business to streamline an antiquated, inefficient, stovepiped process. IPTs are composed of stakeholders representing all appropriate functional disciplines working together to build successful programs, thereby 

enabling decision makers to make the right decisions at the right time. 

Each IPT operates under the following broad principles:

•	 Open discussions with no secrets;

•	 Qualified, empowered team members;

•	 Consistent, success-oriented, proactive participation;

•	 Continuous “up-the-line” communications;

•	 Reasoned disagreement;

•	 Issues raised and resolved early.

For ACAT ID and ACAT IAM programs, there are generally two levels of 

IPTs above the program office—an overarching integrated product team 

(OIPT) at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and working-level IPTs 

(WIPTs) at the headquarters of the military department. The following 

paragraphs discuss the roles and responsibilities of these IPTs.

Overarching Integrated Product Teams: Each ACAT ID program is assigned to an OIPT for management oversight. The OIPT’s primary role is 

to provide strategic guidance and to help resolve issues early, as a program 

proceeds through its acquisition life cycle. OIPTs for weapons and command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems are headed by directors from the Office of the USD(AT&L). 

OIPTs for major automated information systems are headed by an official 

from the Office of the ASD(NII). 
33

OIPT members include the PM, the PEO, component staff, USD(AT&L) 

staff, the Joint Staff, and other defense staff principals or their representatives involved in oversight and review of a particular ACAT ID or ACAT 

IAM program. OIPTs meet as required and convene in formal session two 

weeks in advance of an anticipated milestone decision to assess information and to provide the status of the program to the milestone decision authority. 

Working-Level Integrated Product Teams: WIPTs are formed at the 

Pentagon-level military department headquarters. They meet as required 

to help the PM with planning and preparation for OIPT reviews, and to 

help resolve issues. The leader of each WIPT is usually the PM or the 

PM’s representative. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, there are 

three basic tenets to which WIPT’s must adhere:

•	 The PM is in charge of the program.

•	 IPTs are advisory bodies to the PM.

•	 Direct communication between the program office and all levels in the 

acquisition oversight and review process is expected as a means of exchanging information and building trust.

The following examples of WIPTs are offered as illustrations:

Test Strategy Integrated Product Team: The purpose of this IPT is to 

assist in outlining the test and evaluation master plan for a major program. The objective of such an IPT is to reach agreement on the strategy and plan by identifying and resolving issues early, understanding 

the issues and the rationale for the approach, and, finally, documenting 

a quality test and evaluation master plan that is acceptable to all organizational levels when first presented.

Cost/Performance Integrated Product Team: The best time to reduce 

life cycle costs is early in the acquisition process. Cost reductions 

must be accomplished through cost/performance tradeoff analyses, 

conducted before an acquisition approach is finalized. To facilitate 

that process, each ACAT I and ACAT IA program should establish a 

cost/performance IPT with user community representation. 

The PM may form and lead a type of WIPT called an integrating IPT 

(IIPT) composed of a member from each of the other WIPTs. This team 

supports the development of strategies for acquisition and contracts, cost 
34

estimates, evaluation of alternatives, logistics management, cost-performance trade-offs, etc. The IIPT also coordinates the activities of the other 

WIPTs and ensures that issues not formally addressed by those teams are 

reviewed. 

Component-Level Oversight

Each military service and defense agency has its own oversight and review 

process, which parallels the DAB and IT OIPT processes. These processes 

are used for managing ACAT IC, ACAT IAC and ACAT II programs, and 

for reviewing ACAT ID and ACAT IAM programs prior to a program or 

milestone review at the defense level. The following is a summary of the 

individual military department Pentagon headquarters-level reviews and 

their respective chairs. ACAT III and IV programs are reviewed in a similar fashion by the PEOs or the commander of an acquisition command.

Service Level Review Chaired By

• Army Systems Acquisition Review 

Council

• Program Decision Meeting/Gate 

Reviews (Navy & Marine Corps)

• Air Force Integrated Product Teams/

Acquisition Strategy Panels/Air Force 

Review Board

• Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Acquisition, Logistics and 

Technology)

• Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Research, Development and 

Acquisition)

• Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Acquisition)
35

6

Determining Joint

Warfighting Needs

This chapter focuses on a capabilities-based approach to identifying current and future gaps in the ability to carry out joint warfighting missions 

and functions and to develop requirements for weapons systems to close 

those gaps. This process is called the Joint Capabilities Integration and 

Development System (JCIDS). The primary objective of the JCIDS process is to ensure the capabilities required by the joint warfighter to successfully execute the missions assigned to them are identified with their 

associated operational performance criteria. JCIDS involves an analysis 

of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 

personnel, and facilities (DOTMLPF) in an integrated, collaborative process to define gaps in warfighting capabilities and propose solutions. The 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) 3170 series, Joint Capabilities 

Integration and Development System (JCIDS), provide policy and procedures for identifying, describing and justifying the needs for future warfighting capabilities.”8

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). The JROC, introduced 

in Chapter 5, has the lead for oversight of the JCIDS and validates and approves JCIDS documents for ACAT I and ACAT IA programs. The JROC 

is chaired by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Members include the Vice Chiefs of staff of the Army and Air Force, the Vice Chief of 

Naval Operations, and the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

Joint Capabilities Board (JCB). The JCB functions to assist the JROC 

in carrying out its duties and responsibilities. The JCB reviews and, if appropriate, endorses all JCIDS and joint doctrine, organization, training, 

materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities change recommendation documents prior to their submission to the JROC. The JCB 

is chaired by the Joint Staff Director of Force Structure, Resources, and 

8 As of publication of this booklet, the CJCS 3170 series of May 2007 were under revision.
36

Assessment (J-8). It is composed of general and flag officer representatives of the military services.

Four JCIDS documents are used in DoD to support the acquisition process. The initial capabilities document (ICD) provides the definition of 

the capability need and where it fits in the broader concepts and architectures. The ICD is used to support the materiel development decision and 

Milestone A, and to guide the materiel solution analysis and the technology development phases of the acquisition process.

During the technology development phase, a capability development document (CDD) is written. The CDD supports a Milestone B decision by 

providing more detail on the materiel solution to provide the capability 

previously described in the ICD. The CDD also provides the thresholds 

and objectives for the system attributes against which the delivered capability will be measured. Once approved, the CDD is used to guide the 

engineering and manufacturing development and demonstration phase of 

the acquisition process.

During the engineering and manufacturing development and demonstration phase, the capability production document (CPD) is developed. The 

CPD is used to support the Milestone C decision before a program enters 

low-rate initial production and initial operational test and evaluation. The 

CPD may contain refined performance thresholds from the CDD based on 

lessons learned during the engineering and manufacturing development 

and demonstration phase.

Key Performance Parameters. Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) 

are those attributes or performance characteristics considered most essential for an effective military capability. The CDD and the CPD both contain KPPs that are included in the acquisition program baseline (APB), 

which is described in Chapter 7. Either the JROC or the DoD component 

validates the KPPs, depending on the joint potential designator (JPB) of 

the program—discussed later.

The JCIDS Process and Acquisition Decisions

The link of the JCIDS process to acquisition milestones is shown in Figure 

6-1, More information on milestones and phases is provided in Chapter 7.
37

Figure 6-1. JCIDS Process & Acquisition Decisions

LRIP

MDD MS-A MS-C

ICD – Initial Capabilities Document

CDD – Capability Development Document

CPD – Capability Production Document

MDD – Materiel Development Decision

LRIP – Low-Rate Initial Production

Materiel Solution

Analysis

Materiel Solution

Analysis

Technology

Development

Technology

Development

Joint Capabilities

Integration & Development

System

ICD Engineering & Manufacturing

Development & Demonstration

Engineering & Manufacturing

Development & Demonstration MS-B

Draft

CDD

CDD CPD

Identifying Needed Capabilities

The capabilities-based assessment (CBA) process is the backbone of 

JCIDS (see Figure 6-2). The CBA identifies the capabilities required to 

successfully execute missions, the shortfalls in existing weapon systems to 

deliver those capabilities and the associated operational risks, and the possible non-materiel approaches for mitigating or eliminating the shortfall. 

When appropriate, the CBA recommends pursuing a materiel solution. 

CBA is a top-down approach starting with strategic guidance from the 

President; the Secretary of Defense; and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. The President’s National Security Strategy provides the Secretary 

of Defense guidance for the National Defense Strategy, which in turn provides the Chairman guidance upon which to base the National Military 

Strategy. The National Military Strategy articulates the Chairman’s recommendations to the President and Secretary of Defense on the employment of the military element of power in support of the President’s 

National Security Strategy. 

Based on this top-level strategic guidance, the Joint Staff prepares supporting documents to refine the guidance into more detailed concepts and 

architectures that sponsors can use as a basis for the JCIDS analysis. The 

Family of Joint Operations Concepts describes how the joint force intends 

to operate 15 to 20 years from now. A Concept of Operations is a verbal 
38

or graphic statement, in broad outline, of a commander’s assumptions or 

intent for an operation or series of operations. Also called a “commander’s 

concept,” it is included primarily for additional clarity of purpose. 

Joint Capabilities Integration & Development

System

(JCIDS) Analysis

Capabilities-Based

Assessment

Non- Materiel

Solution Sponsor

DOTMLPF

Change

Request

DOTMLPF

Change

Request

Acquisition

System

DoDI 5000.02 Process

Initial

Capabilities

Document

Initial

Capabilities

Document

Materiel

Solution

Strategic

Guidance

Family of Joint Operations Concepts

Concept of Operations

Figure 6-2. Capabilities-Based Assessment Process

The Sponsor

In the JCIDS, the sponsor is “the DoD Component responsible for all 

common documentation, periodic reporting, and funding actions required to support the capabilities development and acquisition process for 

a specific capability proposal.” Typical sponsors of JCIDS analysis are 

the Training and Doctrine Command in the Army, the Center for Naval 

Analysis and/or the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations staff in the 

Navy, the Marine Corps Combat Developments Command in the Marine 

Corps, and the operational commands (e.g., Air Combat Command or Air 

Mobility Command), supported by the Office of Aerospace Studies in the 

Air Force. 

Joint Potential Designators

A proposed capability document will be assigned a Joint Potential 

Designator (JPD) based on its potential Acquisition Category (ACAT) and 

its potential for affecting joint force operations. The JPD also determines 
39

the level of joint staff review and certification. For descriptions of JPDs 

currently in use, see the CJCS 3170 series mentioned earlier.

Functional Capability Boards

The JROC charters FCBs responsible for the organization, analysis, and 

prioritization of joint warfighting capabilities within an assigned functional area. As of the date of this booklet, the JROC had chartered FCBs for 

command and control, battlespace awareness, logistics, force support, protection, force application, net-centricity, building partnerships, and corporate support and management. In addition to the review and validation of 

JCIDS documents, FCBs are responsible for all aspects, materiel and nonmateriel, of their assigned functional area. 

Gatekeeper

The Gatekeeper performs an initial review of all JCIDS proposals and 

determines the Joint Potential Designator and the lead and supporting 

FCBs. Formal staffing of JCIDS documents begins after Gatekeeper decisions. The Joint Staff Vice Director, J-8, serves as the Gatekeeper. The 

Gatekeeper is supported by the FCB working group leads and the Joint 

Staff, J-6.

Interoperability

Interoperability is the ability of systems, units, or forces to provide data, 

information, materiel, and services to and accept services from other systems, units, or forces; and to use the services so exchanged to enable them 

to operate effectively together. All defense systems must be interoperable with other U.S. and allied defense systems, as defined in the JCIDS 

and interoperability documents. The program manager (PM) describes the 

treatment of interoperability requirements in the acquisition strategy. In 

an evolutionary acquisition involving successive increments of increasing 

capability, this description should address each increment as well as the 

transitions from increment to increment. Chapter 7 will explain the evolutionary acquisition process in more detail.

Consistent with DoD’s philosophy of treating new systems as components 

of a family-of-systems, if enhancements to the PM’s program or to other programs is required to support interoperability requirements, the PM 

must identify the technical, schedule, and funding issues for both the ac-
40

quisition program and the other program(s). Some examples of interoperability are as follows:

•	 Aircraft from different Services and allied countries can communicate 

with each other and with ground forces.

•	 Aircraft from one service can exchange target information with a ship 

of another service and/or an allied country.

•	 Ammunition from one Service can be used by weapons from another 

Service and/or an allied country.

As shown in Figure 6-3, C4I interoperability issues affect all kinds of systems. When applied to communications-electronics systems or items, interoperability means information can be exchanged directly and satisfactorily between systems and items of equipment.

C4I interoperability policy affects both kinds of information technology 

systems: automated information systems (i.e., systems that normally satisfy business and/or administrative requirements, like the information systems used in the Defense Commissary System); and command, control, 

communications, computer, and intelligence systems used to assist the 

commander in organizing, directing, and controlling warfighting forces.

Achievement of seamless interoperability between all defense command, 

control, communications, computer, and intelligence systems is of the 

highest priority. To this end, DoD has developed a series of architecture 

framework documents that provide guidance for the development of architectures to evolve the Department’s transformation to a new type of information intensive warfare known as Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). NCW 

focuses on generating combat power from the networking of warfighting 

organizations, making essential information available to authorized users 

when and where they need it. The current DoD Architecture Framework 

is available from the web site of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Networks and Information Integration (see list of web sites after last chapter). 

Testing of C4I Interoperability Requirements

All command, communication, control, computer, and intelligence (C4I)

systems having joint interoperability requirements, regardless of ACAT, 

and must be tested and certified by the Joint Interoperability Test Command. 

This testing should be performed during developmental and operational 
41

testing whenever possible to conserve resources. The Joint Staff, J-6, certifies whether a system meets its interoperability requirements based on 

results of the testing. 

C4I Interoperability

Processing Communications

What does it include?

Emitters Sensors

Figure 6-3. Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers, and Intelligence Interoperability
42

7

Defense Acquisition

Management System

Acquisition Life Cycle

The acquisition management system for defense systems is commonly referred to as the acquisition life cycle. The generic model for this process 

is illustrated in Figure 7-1. PMs may tailor this model using discretion and 

prudent business judgment to structure an innovative and responsive program.

IOC

Technology

Development

Engineering &

Manufacturing Development

Production &

Deployment

Systems Acquisition

Operations &

Support

Sustainment

FRP

Decision

Review

FOC

Post-CDR

Assessment

Pre-Systems Acquisition

Materiel

Solution

Analysis

Materiel

Development

Decision

User Needs

Technology Opportunities & Resources

A B C Program

Initiation

Relationship to JCIDS

Initial Capabilities Document Capability Development Document Capability Production Document

• The Materiel Development Decision precedes

entry into any phase of the acquisition management

system

• Entrance criteria met before entering phases

• Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full

Capability

Post-PDR

Assessment

Decision Point Milestone Review Decision Point of PDR is not conducted before Milestone B

Figure 7-1. Defense Acquisition Management System

The life cycle process consists of periods of time called phases separated by 

decision points called milestones. Some phases are divided into two efforts 

separated by program reviews. These milestones and other decision points 
43

provide both the PM and milestone decision authorities the framework with 

which to review acquisition programs, monitor and administer progress, 

identify problems, and make corrections. The milestone decision authority 

(MDA) will approve entrance into the appropriate phase or effort of the 

acquisition process by signing an acquisition decision memorandum upon 

completion of a successful decision review.

The life cycle process takes the program through determination of mission 

needs; research; development; production; deployment; support; upgrade; 

and finally, demilitarization and disposal. Initial operational capability, or 

IOC, is that point at which a selected number of operational forces have received the new system and are capable of conducting and supporting warfighting operations. References to “life cycle costs” in defense acquisition 

include all costs associated with the system from cradle to grave.

Technological Opportunities and User Needs 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the assistance of the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), assesses and provides advice 

regarding military capability needs for defense acquisition programs. User 

needs are determined by the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 

System (JCIDS) discussed in Chapter 6. 

The Defense Science and Technology Program identifies and explores 

technological opportunities within DoD laboratories and research centers, academia, and commercial sources. The aim is to provide the user 

with innovative war-winning capabilities and reduce the risk associated 

with promising technologies before they are introduced into the acquisition system. There is a broad range of mechanisms to facilitate the transition of innovative concepts and superior technology to the acquisition 

process, among them Joint Experimentation, Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency projects, the Technology Transition Incentive Program, 

Small Business Technology Transfer Programs, the Joint Integration and 

Interoperability Program, Joint Capability Technology Demonstrations, 

the Coalition Warfare Program, the Quick Reaction Special Projects/Rapid 

Reaction Fund, Foreign Comparative Testing, the Defense Acquisition 

Challenge Program, and others.
44

Entrance and Exit Criteria

Before any acquisition program can enter into a phase of the life cycle, 

it must satisfy generic entrance criteria specified by DoDI 5000.02 (for 

example, completion of selected studies, reports, and demonstrations in 

certain operational environments). Before a program can exit a phase of 

the life cycle, it must demonstrate it has met any of the general criteria applicable to all programs specified by DoDI 5000.2 and any phase-specific 

exit criteria applicable to that specific program—such as demonstrating 

that certain technological risks have been overcome.

Evolutionary Acquisition 

Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred DoD strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology for the user. In an evolutionary approach, a 

needed operational capability is met over time by delivering capability 

in several increments, recognizing up front the need for future capability 

improvements. The objective is to rapidly field the first increment and put 

the capability into the hands of the user quickly. Evolutionary acquisition 

requires collaboration among the user, tester, and developer. 

Milestones and Phases

Following is a brief discussion of each of the phases, milestones, and other 

decision reviews. There is no one size fits all; each program structure must 

be based on that program’s unique set of requirements and available technology. The process of adjusting the life cycle to fit a particular set of programmatic circumstances is often referred to as “tailoring.” The number of 

phases, key activities, and decision points are tailored by the PM based on 

an objective assessment of the program’s technical maturity and risks. 

Milestone decisions are made by the appropriate MDA depending on the acquisition category (ACAT) of the program (see Chapter 5). Prior to each decision point, the appropriate Joint Capabilities Integration and Development 

System (JCIDS) document must be approved (see Chapter 6).
45

Acquisition Strategy Considerations

Pre-Systems Acquisition

Pre-systems acquisition is composed of activities in development of user 

needs, science and technology, and technology development work specific 

to the refinement of materiel solution(s) identified in the approved initial 

capabilities document (ICD). There are two phases in pre-systems acquisition: materiel solution analysis and technology development.

Materiel Solution Analysis Phase begins with a materiel development decision (MDD) by the MDA. The MDD is the formal entry point into the 

acquisition process and is mandatory for all programs. During this phase a 

study called an analysis of alternatives is conducted to assess alternatives 

to provide the desired capability identified in the ICD. To achieve the best 

possible system solution, materiel solution analysis places emphasis on 

innovation and competition and on existing commercial off-the-shelf and 

other solutions drawn from a diverse range of large and small businesses. 

A technology development strategy is developed to help guide the efforts 

during the next phase, which is technology development. Materiel solution analysis ends when materiel solution to the capability need identified 

in the ICD is recommended by the lead component. 

Milestone A. At Milestone A, the MDA approves a materiel solution, the 

technology development strategy, and, for major defense acquisition programs, must certify that the program fulfills an approved ICD, is being executed by an entity with a relevant core competency, a cost estimate has 

been submitted, and the resources required to develop and procure the system are consistent with the priority level assigned by the JROC. 

Technology Development Phase begins after a Milestone A decision by 

the MDA. The ICD and Technology Development Strategy guide the 

work during technology development. A favorable Milestone A decision 

normally does not mean a new acquisition program has been initiated, except that shipbuilding programs may be initiated at the beginning of technology development. 
46

The purpose of this phase is to reduce technology risk, determine the appropriate set of technologies to be integrated into a full system, and complete a preliminary design. Competitive prototyping is used to reduce 

technical risk, validate designs and cost estimates, evaluate manufacturing 

processes, and refine requirements.

The project exits technology development when an affordable program or 

increment of militarily useful capability has been identified, the technology has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, manufacturing risks 

have been identified and assessed, a preliminary design review9

 has been 

conducted for the solution, and a system or increment can be developed 

for production within a short timeframe (normally less than 5 years for 

weapon systems); or when the MDA decides to terminate the effort.

Systems Acquisition

Milestone B. Milestone B will normally be program initiation for defense 

acquisition programs.10 For shipbuilding programs, the lead ship in a class 

of ships is also approved at Milestone B. Each increment of an evolutionary 

acquisition (explained later) will have its own Milestone B. Before making a decision, the MDA will confirm that technology is mature enough 

for systems-level development to begin, the appropriate document from 

the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (see Chapter 

6) has been approved, and funds are in the budget and the out-year program for all current and future efforts necessary to carry out the acquisition strategy. At Milestone B, the MDA approves the acquisition strategy, 

the acquisition program baseline, the type of contract for the next phase, 

and authorizes entry into the engineering and manufacturing development 

and demonstration phase. 

The MDA also certifies to the congressional defense committees that the 

program is affordable, funding is available, market research was conducted, an analysis of alternatives was completed, the JROC is in agreement, 

technology has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, and the 

program has a high likelihood of accomplishing its intended mission and 

complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements.

Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase: The purpose of the 

EMD phase is to develop a system or an increment of capability; complete 

9 In some cases a preliminary design review may be conducted after Milestone B. In those cases, 

the MDA will conduct a Post-Preliminary Design Review Assessment 10 The Milestone Decision Authority may initiate shipbuilding programs at Milestone A.
47

full-system integration; develop an affordable and executable manufacturing process; ensure operational supportability with particular attention to 

minimizing the logistics footprint; implement human systems integration 

(HSI); design for producibility; ensure affordability; protect critical program information by implementing appropriate techniques such as antitamper; and demonstrate system integration, interoperability, safety, and 

utility.

Entrance criteria for this phase are technology maturity, full funding in the 

Future Years Defense Program (discussed in Chapter 8), and an approved 

capability development document (CDD). Programs entering at Milestone 

B must have both a system architecture (defined set of subsystems making 

up the system), and an operational architecture (description of how this 

system interacts with other systems, including passing of data). The efforts 

of this phase are guided by the acquisition strategy, the systems engineering plan, the test and evaluation master plan, and the CDD.

The key performance parameters (KPPs) (see Chapter 6) will guide the 

technical activities of this phase. KPPs are found in both the approved 

CDD and in the acquisition program baseline (APB). The APB establishes 

program goals (called thresholds and objectives) for cost, schedule, and 

performance parameters that describe the program over its life cycle. This 

phase typically contains two efforts, integrated systems design and system 

capability and manufacturing process demonstration. A post-critical design review (CDR) assessment by the MDA takes place to authorize entry 

into system capability and manufacturing process demonstration.

Integrated System Design: During this effort, system and system-of-systems functionality and interfaces are defined; hardware and software detailed design are completed; and system-level risk is reduced. Integrated 

system design includes the establishment of the product baseline.

Post-Critical Design Review Assessment: The MDA conducts a formal 

program assessment following system-level CDR. The system-level CDR 

provides an opportunity to assess design maturity, as evidenced by measures such as the percentage of hardware and software product build-to 

specifications and drawings completed and under configuration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software deficiencies; 

adequate developmental testing; manufacturing feasibility and critical 

manufacturing processes; an estimate of system reliability based on demonstrated reliability rates; etc.
48

System Capability and Manufacturing Process Demonstration: This effort 

is intended to demonstrate the ability of the system to operate in a useful 

way consistent with the approved KPPs, and that system production can be 

supported by demonstrated manufacturing processes. The program enters 

system capability and manufacturing process demonstration upon completion of the post-CDR assessment. Critical during this effort are developmental test and evaluation to assess technical progress against critical 

technical parameters, early operational assessments, and—where proven 

capabilities exist—the use of modeling and simulation to demonstrate system/system of systems integration. 

This effort ends when the system meets approved requirements and is 

demonstrated in its intended environment using the selected productionrepresentative article; manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated; industrial capabilities are reasonably available; and the system 

meets or exceeds exit criteria and Milestone C entrance requirements. 

Milestone C: The MDA makes the decision to commit the Department of 

Defense to production at Milestone C. Milestone C authorizes entry into 

low-rate initial production (LRIP) or into production or procurement for 

systems that do not require LRIP. Milestone C authorizes limited deployment in support of operational testing for major automated information 

systems (MAIS) or software-intensive systems with no production components. If Milestone C is LRIP approval, a subsequent review and decision authorizes full-rate production

Production and Deployment Phase: The purpose of this phase is to achieve 

an operational capability that satisfies mission needs. Operational test 

and evaluation determines the effectiveness and suitability of the system. 

Entrance into this phase depends on acceptable performance in developmental test and evaluation and operational assessment; mature software 

capability; no significant manufacturing risks; manufacturing processes 

under control (if Milestone C is full-rate production); an approved ICD 

(if Milestone C is program initiation); an approved capability production 

document (CPD); acceptable interoperability; acceptable operational supportability; and demonstration that the system is affordable throughout the 

life cycle, optimally funded, and properly phased for rapid acquisition. 

For most defense acquisition programs, production and deployment has 

two major efforts—LRIP and full-rate production and deployment—and 

includes a full-rate production decision review. 
49

Low-Rate Initial Production: This effort is intended to result in completion of manufacturing development in order to ensure adequate and efficient manufacturing capability and to produce the minimum quantity 

necessary to provide production or production-representative articles for 

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), establish an initial production base for the system, and permit an orderly increase in the production rate sufficient to lead to full-rate production upon successful completion of operational (and live-fire, where applicable) testing. The MDA 

determines the LRIP quantity for ACAT I and II programs at Milestone 

B. LRIP is not applicable to automated information systems or softwareintensive systems with no developmental hardware; however, a limited 

deployment phase may be applicable. LRIP for ships and satellites is production of items at the minimum quantity and rate feasible that preserves 

the mobilization production base for that system.

Full-Rate Production Decision Review: Before granting a favorable fullrate production decision review, the MDA considers IOT&E and live-fire 

test and evaluation results (if applicable); demonstrated interoperability, 

supportability, cost, and manpower estimates; and command, control, 

communications, computer, and intelligence supportability and certification (if applicable). A favorable full-rate production decision authorizes 

the program to proceed into the full-rate production and deployment portion of the production and deployment phase. 

Full-Rate Production and Deployment: The system is produced and delivered to the field for operational use. During this phase, the PM must ensure 

that systems are produced at an economical rate and deployed in accordance with the user’s requirement to meet the initial operational capability 

requirement specified in the capability production document. Follow-on 

operational test and evaluation may also be conducted, if appropriate, to 

confirm operational effectiveness and suitability or verify the correction of 

deficiencies. The operations and support phase begins as soon as the first 

systems are fielded/deployed; therefore, the production and deployment 

phase overlaps the next phase, operations and support.

Operations and Support Phase: During this phase, full operational capability is achieved, each element of logistics support is evaluated (e.g., supply, maintenance, training, technical data, support equipment), and operational readiness is assessed. Logistics and readiness concerns dominate 

this phase. The operations and support phase includes life cycle sustainment and disposal. 
50

Life Cycle Sustainment seamlessly spans a system’s entire life cycle, from 

materiel solution analysis to disposal. It translates force-provider capability and performance requirements into tailored product support to achieve 

specified and evolving life cycle product support availability, reliability, 

and affordability parameters. Life cycle sustainment planning starts during materiel solution analysis, and matures throughout technology development.

Life cycle sustainment considerations include supply; maintenance; transportation; sustaining engineering; data management; configuration management; human systems integration; environment, safety (including explosives safety), and occupational health; protection of critical program 

information and anti-tamper provisions; supportability; and interoperability. The PM employs performance-based lifecycle (PBL) product support 

planning, development, implementation, and management. PBL offers the 

best strategic approach for delivering required life cycle readiness, reliability, and ownership costs. Sources of support may be organic, commercial, or a combination, with the primary focus on optimizing customer 

support, weapon system availability, and reduced ownership costs. 

Disposal of the system occurs at the end of its useful life. The PM should 

have planned for disposal early in the system’s life cycle and should ensure that the system disposal minimizes DoD’s liability resulting from 

environmental, safety, security, and health issues. Environmental considerations are particularly critical during disposal, as there may be international treaty or other legal considerations that require intensive management of the system’s demilitarization and disposal. 

Key Activities

All acquisition programs must accomplish certain key activities to ensure 

success. These activities provide information that helps the PM balance 

cost, schedule, and performance considerations to meet the warfighter’s 

needs on time and at an affordable cost. Cost includes all funds required 

to design, develop, produce, operate, support, and dispose of the system. 

Schedule includes the time it takes to design, develop, produce, and deploy a fully supported system. Performance is the degree to which a system can be expected to perform its mission in combat. 

The key activities listed here are not all inclusive; however, they highlight 

the business and technical activities that apply to all acquisition programs. 
51

For additional information on these and numerous other activities that 

support the acquisition process, see the Defense Acquisition Guidebook 

(http://akss.dau.mil/dag).

Validation and Approval of JCIDS Documents: The program must address 

the mission capability need documented in the initial capabilities document, and meet the system-level performance parameters documented in 

the capability development document and capability production document 

(see Chapter 6).

Selection of a Preferred Solution: Alternatives that could potentially meet 

the mission need are analyzed during the materiel solution analysis phase 

using an analysis of alternatives study. For an ACAT I program, this process can be quite formal, requiring significant time, effort, and money. 

Cost Estimating: Life cycle cost estimating must be accomplished to support inputs into the program objectives memorandum (see Chapter 8) and 

the budget. Depending on the ACAT of the program, cost estimating is 

done at the program level (called the program office estimate); the component headquarters level (called a component cost estimate); and at the 

defense staff level (called an independent cost estimate) (See Chapter 4). 

Additionally, cost estimating supports affordability assessments, which 

determine whether a component can “fit” a program within its projected 

budget authority (over time) given all its other commitments.

Preparation of an Acquisition Strategy and Program Structure: The acquisition strategy, developed by the PM and approved by the MDA at 

Milestone B, is a comprehensive, overarching master plan that details how 

the program’s goals and objectives will be met. It serves as a “roadmap” 

for program execution from program initiation through post-production 

support. It describes the key elements of the program (e.g., requirements, 

resources, testing, contracting approach, and open systems design) and 

their interrelationship, and it evolves over time, becoming increasingly 

definitive as the program matures. Acquisition strategies are tailored to 

the specific needs of an individual program. Program structure charts are 

schedules that graphically depict the time phasing of key events in the acquisition strategy, like milestones, testing, and others. 

Contract Planning and Management: Contracting for goods and services is fundamental, since the functions inherent in systems acquisition—

analysis, design, development, test, production, sustainment, modifica-
52

tion, and disposal of systems—are accomplished through contracts with 

private industry. Typical activities include preparing an acquisition plan

(a description of contracting strategy for the program with emphasis on 

the types and numbers of contracts to be awarded in an upcoming phase); 

preparing the request for proposal (a document that describes the task(s) 

or service(s) that the government wants industry to propose against); conducting a source selection (a process to select the winning contractor); and 

performing contractor surveillance and monitoring performance. 

Budget Execution: Resources must be budgeted and obtained to execute 

contracts with industry. The process includes formulating input for the 

program objectives memorandum (a spend plan covering a 6-year period), 

the budget, and other programmatic or financial documentation in support of the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process (see 

Chapter 8). Funds are obligated upon the signing of a contact; funds are 

outlayed as the government makes actual payment in accordance with the 

contract for goods and services rendered.

Preparation of an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB): The baseline 

contains the most important cost, schedule, and performance parameters, 

described in terms of threshold and objective values. A threshold value 

is a required value, while an objective value is a desired value. Schedule 

parameters include key schedule events, such as milestone reviews, initiation of key testing activities, and the start of production. APB performance parameters are the key performance parameters specified in the capability development document and capability production document (see 

Chapter 6). Thus, the APB is a convenient summary of the most important 

aspects of a program (cost, schedule, and performance), and it provides a 

useful tool for management to assess how well a program is progressing 

towards its stated objectives. The APB is developed by the PM and approved by the chain of authority up to the MDA. For example, the APB 

for an ACAT ID program will be approved by its program executive officer, the Component Acquisition Executive, and the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

Test Planning: Test planning is central to the formulation of a coherent acquisition strategy. A variety of testing must be planned and accomplished 

either to confirm program progress or to conform to statutory dictate. After 

all, it is by testing that we validate the performance requirements identified by the user in the capability production document and promised in the 

acquisition program baseline by the PM. Testing includes developmental 
53

test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, and live-fire test and 

evaluation, as appropriate. The PM will coordinate all testing into an efficient continuum, closely integrated with requirements definition and systems design and development. The PM’s test and evaluation master plan 

documents the overall structure and objectives of the test and evaluation 

program. It provides a framework to generate detailed test and evaluation 

plans for a particular test, and it contains resource and schedule implications for the test and evaluation program. 

Interoperability Planning: Interoperability within and across the military 

services and partners in coalition warfare is essential for successful combat operations. To facilitate planning and ensure interoperability policy 

is being considered and addressed, an information support plan (ISP) is 

required for all weapon systems/programs that interface with command, 

communication, control, computer, and intelligence systems. The ISP includes system description, employment concept, operational support requirements, and interoperability and connectivity requirements. 

Formulation of Exit Criteria: MDAs use exit criteria to establish goals 

for an acquisition program during a particular phase. At each milestone 

review, the PM proposes exit criteria appropriate to the next phase of the 

program for approval by the MDA. Exit criteria are phase-specific tasks 

selected to track progress in important technical, schedule, or risk-management areas. They act as “gates” that, when successfully passed, demonstrate that the program is on track to achieve its final goals. Examples of 

appropriate exit criteria are achieving a level of performance (e.g., engine 

thrust or missile range) or successful accomplishment of a task (e.g., first 

flight). Exit criteria are documented in the acquisition decision memorandum issued by the MDA upon completion of a milestone review.

Systems Engineering: The DoD acquisition process is critically dependent on effective and rigorous engineering processes—without them, operationally affordable and sustainable weapon systems cannot be built. 

Overarching all engineering efforts is a technical discipline called systems engineering. Systems engineering is applied at the initial stages of 

program formulation, and it continues throughout a systems’ life cycle. It 

transforms needed operational capabilities into an integrated system design through concurrent consideration of all life cycle needs; integrates the 

technical efforts related to system and software development, manufacturing, verification, deployment, operations and support, disposal and user 

training for systems and their life cycle supporting products and services; 
54

and develops credible and timely technical information to support the program management decision-making process.

Technology Maturity: The management and mitigation of technology and 

technology integration risk, which allows less costly and less time-consuming systems development, is a crucial part of overall program management and is especially relevant to meeting cost and schedule goals. 

Objective assessment of technology maturity and risk is a routine aspect of 

DoD acquisition. Technology developed in science and technology or procured from industry or other sources must be demonstrated in a relevant 

environment—preferably an operational environment—to be considered 

mature enough to use for product development.

Program Protection Planning: A program protection plan must be prepared for any program that is determined by the PM to have critical program information that could be exploited to undermine the mission-effectiveness of a system. The plan lays out the efforts necessary to prevent 

inadvertent disclosure and to deny access by foreign intelligence-collection activities. It is updated throughout the system life cycle and reviewed 

at every milestone decision review.
55

8

The Resource

Allocation Process

All resources (dollars) for Department of Defense (DoD) activities, whether for weapons, information systems, people, buildings, or operating and 

support costs, are provided through the resource allocation process. The 

four phases of this process are:

•	 Phase 1—Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) 

Process

•	 Phase 2—Enactment

•	 Phase 3—Apportionment

•	 Phase 4—Execution

From the standpoint of developing, producing, fielding, and supporting 

weapon systems, PPBE is the focus of attention in the headquarters activities, while defense acquisition PMs are equally concerned with providing 

information to ensure their programs are funded for the future and with the 

day-to-day management of their program. Following is a brief discussion 

of these four phases, which are depicted in Figure 8-1.

DoD

President

& OMB

Congress Authorization

Committees

Appropriation

Committees

Testimony Appeals

Authorization/

Appropriation

Acts Passed

Phase: II - Enactment

PPBE

President’s

Budget Apportionment

Phase III:

Allocation/

Execution

Phase IV:

Budget

Committees

Phase I:

Budget execution & program performance

Figure 8-1. Resource Allocation Process
56

 Phase I—Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 

and Execution Process

PPBE (originally introduced as the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting 

System) is the process that produces DoD’s portion of the President’s budget. It is a biennial (2-year) cycle during which DoD formulates 2-year 

budgets in even-numbered calendar years, called the “on-year,” and then 

uses the “off year” (odd-numbered calendar years) to focus on budget execution and program performance. During the on-year, PPBE produces the 

Guidance for Development of the Force (GDF); the Joint Programming 

Guidance (JPG); a program objectives memorandum (POM) for each military department, defense agency, and other agencies/offices. Updates to 

the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) occur during both on and off 

years, and a DoD budget is produced every year. During the off-year, the 

GDF may be issued at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. Small 

programmatic adjustments will be allowed during the off year to reflect 

real-world changes. The following chart shows responsibility for each 

product.

Activity OSD Action Office Products

 On-Year:

Planning Under Secretary of Defense 

(Policy)

Guidance for Development of 

the Force

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Policy) & Director, Program 

Analysis & Evaluation

Joint Programming Guidance

Programming Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation

Approved Program Objectives 

(updated FYDP)

Budgeting Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller)

DoD Portion of the President’s 

Budget (updated FYDP)

 Off-Year:

Planning

(as required)

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Policy) & Director, Program 

Analysis & Evaluation

Guidance for Development of 

the Force (optional) and

Joint Programming Guidance

Program

Changes

Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation

Limited Changes to Baseline 

Program (updated FYDP)

Budget Changes Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller)

Limited Changes to Baseline 

Budget (updated FYDP)
57

The Deputy Secretary of Defense manages PPBE and makes recommendations for decisions to the Secretary of Defense. The Deputy’s Advisory 

Working Group (DAWG), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the panel that provides 

oversight of PPBE activities. The DAWG membership includes the Under 

Secretaries of Defense, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 

Service Vice Chiefs of Staff, the Assistant Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, the military department under secretaries, the Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Network Integration and Information (ASD[NII]), the 

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the Director of 

Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E), and the Deputy Commander 

for U.S. Special Operations Command. The Director, PA&E serves as executive secretary.

Off/On Year Activities

The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) required by Congress is DoD’s 

major statement of defense strategy and business policy. As such, the 

QDR fulfills the requirement for the DoD Strategic Plan required by the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The QDR integrates 

and influences all internal programmatic decisions that must be resourced 

by the President’s budget. Since the QDR is produced every 4 years only, 

this drives PPBE to slightly different off and on-years within a 4-year construct. The following summarizes a typical 4-year period of time that reflects the 2-year cycle of PPBE.

Year 1. Off Year: The first year of a new presidential administration and 

an off year (odd numbered calendar year) for PPBE. The budget submitted to Congress has been developed by the outgoing administration, and 

the budget being executed reflects the policies of the previous administration. Activities during this year may include supplemental budget requests 

to Congress to start reorienting spending in accordance with policies of 

the new administration. Since this is an off year for PPBE, there will be 

no POM or Budget Estimate Submit (BES) to the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense; however, programmatic and budget changes to the previous 

administration’s on-year baseline will be accomplished by change proposals developed by the departments and agencies during the spring and summer. A program/budget review will be conducted in the fall (September 

through November) based on input from the change proposals that will result in the submission of the President’s budget to Congress in February.
58

In the first year of a new administration, the President’s national security 

strategy (NSS) must be issued within 150 days of taking office. The NSS 

will provide top-level guidance for conduct of the QDR, and provide guidance for the Secretary of Defense to develop national defense strategy and 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop the national military 

strategy (NMS). The NMS will be reflected in the QDR and in an NMS 

document. For subsequent years, the NSS is due with submission of the 

President’s budget. The NMS is updated by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff only when necessary.

The QDR will start in the summer/fall of this year so a QDR can be provided to Congress concurrent with the submission of the new administration’s first budget in February. A program/budget execution review of 

the prior budget year(s) will be conducted in the fall (September through 

November), and this activity initializes the drafting of the on-year Guidance 

for Development of the Force (GDF).

Year 2. On Year: The second year of a new administration and an on year 

(even-numbered calendar year) for PPBE. The QDR is submitted concurrent with the President’s budget in February. The defense planning guidance is issued around May followed by a concurrent POM/budget process. The departments and agencies will submit their POM and BES in 

August. Adjustments will be made in the FYDP and the DoD input to the 

President’s budget will be finalized. Concurrent with the fall Office of the 

Secretary of Defense assessment of the POMs and budget estimates, a program/budget execution review of the previous budget execution year will 

be conducted. 

Year 3. Off Year: The third year of a new administration and another offyear for PPBE. As this is the 2nd off-year, there is no requirement for a 

QDR. There may be an NSS issued by the White House and the NMS may 

be updated, depending on the security environment. The issuance of an 

off-year GDF is optional with the Secretary of Defense. Programmatic and 

budget changes to the last on-year baseline will be again accomplished by 

change proposals. Drafting of the on-year GDF is started during the offyear program, budget, and execution review. The change proposal process 

will again result in a new DoD budget. 

Year 4. On Year: The fourth year of a new administration and another on 

year for PPBE. The activities for this year are like those of year 2 except 

there is no QDR.
59

Phase II—Enactment

Enactment is the process through which Congress reviews the President’s 

budget, conducts hearings, and passes legislation. Enactment begins when 

the President submits the annual budget to Congress in early February and 

ends when the President signs the annual authorization and appropriation 

bills approximately 9 months later. “Authorization” approves programs 

and specifies maximum funding levels and quantities of systems to be procured. The “appropriations process” provides the budget authority with 

which to incur obligations (i.e., obligate) and expend and outlay funds.

Phase III—Apportionment

Once the authorization and appropriations legislation is signed into law by 

the President, funds are made available to DoD and other federal agencies. 

“Apportionment” occurs when the Office of Management and Budget 

provides those funds to DoD and other federal agencies. Subsequently, 

DoD allocates funds within the Department through action by the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and his counterpart in the Services and 

defense agencies.

Phase IV—Execution

The execution phase occurs when appropriated funds are spent on defense 

programs. In other words, it is the process of “obligating” funds (awarding 

contracts) and “expending” funds (writing checks to pay bills). Outlays 

occur when government checks are cashed and money flows out of the 

U.S. Treasury. The four phases of the resource allocation process overlap 

(see Figure 8-2, next page).

The current fiscal year budget is being executed while enactment of next 

year’s is under way, and programming for the following budget is in process. Planning is essentially a continuous process.

It is incumbent upon PMs and other officials responsible for any aspect 

of the resource allocation process to be aware of the sequence of activities and to understand where they are in the process at all times. Note that 

PPBE is a calendar-driven system and that the acquisition life cycle is 

event-driven. Avoiding a mismatch or disconnect between programmatic 

requirements and available funding demands close attention on the part 
60

of PMs. This may be the most challenging part of a PM’s job and, if not 

managed carefully, can become the greatest single source of program instability.

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

CY08 CY09 CY10

Programming &

Budgeting Planning Enactment Execution

Programming &

Budgeting Planning Enactment

Enactment Execution

Execution

Programming &

Budgeting Planning

FY09

FY08 & prior

FY09 & prior

FY10 FY10 & prior

GDF/JPG* FY11-15

POM FY12-17

Budget FY12-13

FYDP changes FY11-15

Budget changes FY11

FY11 FY11 &

prior

GDF/JPG FY12-17

GDF/JPG*

FY10-15

POM FY10-15

Budget FY10-11

*GDF SECDEF Option in off year

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Execution

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D

Figure 8-2. Resource Allocation Process – Overlap
61

World Wide Web Sites

For readers who wish to follow-up with additional study on the defense 

acquisition system, we present the following list of web sites for the major 

organizations and documents mentioned in this pamphlet. Web addresses 

are current as of the publication date of this pamphlet.

Organization/Document WWW Location

Acquisition Knowledge Sharing System http://akss.dau.mil

Acquisition Community Connection https://acc.dau.mil (requires registration)

Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology), 

the Army Acquisition Executive

https://www.alt.army.mil/portal/page/portal/

oasaalt

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Acquisition), the Air Force Acquisition 

Executive

http://ww3.safaq.hq.af.mil

Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Research, Development and Acquisition), 

the Navy and Marine Corps Acquisition 

Executive

http://acquisition.navy.mil

Assistant Secretary of Defense (NII), the 

DoD Chief Information Officer

www.dod.mil/nii

Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstrations

www.acq.osd.mil/actd

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff www.jcs.mil

CJCSI 3170.01C and CJCS Manual 

3170.01

www.dtic.mil/cjcs_directives

Defense Acquisition Guidebook http://akss.dau.mil/dag

Defense Acquisition University www.dau.mil

Defense Acquisition University 

Continuous Learning Center

http://clc.dau.mil

Director, Program Analysis & Evaluation www.pae.osd.mil

Director, Operational Test & Evaluation www.dote.osd.mil

DoDD 5000.01 and DoDI 5000.02 www.dtic.mil/whs/directives

Future Joint Warfare (Family of Joint 

Operations Concepts)

www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare
62

Organization/Document WWW Location

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/far.html

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/sitemap.html

Office of the Secretary of Defense www.defenselink.mil

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

www.acq.osd.mil
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

Dear Valued Customer:

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Press publishes this reference tool for students in DAU courses, 

and other members of the defense acquisition workforce. We continually seek customer inputs to maintain the 

integrity and usefulness of this publication.

We ask that you spend a few minutes evaluating this publication. Although we have identified several topic 

areas to evaluate, please feel free to add any additional thoughts as they apply to your particular situation. This 

information will assist us in improving future editions.

To assist you in responding, this pre-addressed form requires no postage. Simply tear-out this page, fold, and 

tape closed as indicated, then place in the mail. Responses may also be faxed to the DAU Press at (703) 805-

2917 or DSN 655-2917.

NAME AND DATE OF PUBLICATION __________________________________________________________

1. Do you find this publication a useful reference tool?

YES

NOHow can we improve the level of usefulness?

2. Is the material presented in this publication current?

YES NO

3. Using the rating scale below, please indicate your satisfaction level for each topic area. Place your response 

on the line beside the topic area.

1 = Very satisfied 2 = Satisfied 3 = No opinion 4 = Dissatisfied 5 = Very dissatisfied

Readability

Scope of coverage

Contribution to your knowledge of the subject

Contribution to your job effectiveness

Contribution to process improvement

4. Are there other subject areas you would like to have included in this publication?

YES (Please identify) 

NO

5. If you recommend additions, deletions, or changes to this publication, please identify them below.

6. Additional comments

(THIS SECTION IS OPTIONAL)

Name/Title

Address

City/State/Zip

Commercial () DSN E-Mail
74

NO POSTAGE 

NECESSARY 

IF MAILED 

IN THE 

UNITED STATES 

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL 

FIRST CLASS PERMIT NO. 12 FORT BELVOIR,VA

POSTAGEWILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY 

ATTN DAU PRESS 

9820 BELVOIR ROAD 

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-9989 

STAPLE