i

INTRODUCTION 

TO DEFENSE

ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT

NINTH EDITION

SEPTEMBER 2009

PUBLISHED BY THE

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY PRESS

FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd i ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd i 9/23/2009 11:01:21 AM /23/2009 11:01:21 AM
ii

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Offi ce

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

ISBN 978-0-16-084076-0, Stock Number 008-020-01592-0

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd ii ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd ii 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
iii

PREFACE

This ninth edition of Introduction to Defense Acquisition Management

includes revisions to the regulatory framework for Defense systems acquisition management from the December 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 publication 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 specifi c defense system. 

The document is based on numerous source documents. For the reader 

who wishes to dig deeper into this complex area, a list of Web site addresses is provided after the last chapter.

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

diffi cult 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 fi ll it out and help us improve our 

publication.

 Bradford Brown 

 Director, Center for Acquisition and 

 Program Management

 Learning Capabilities Integration Center

 Defense Acquisition University

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:iii ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:iii 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of Introduction to Defense Acquisition Management appreciate the comments and suggestions of interested readers and Defense 

Acquisition University faculty for this ninth edition. We would also like 

to offer special thanks to the following DAU Visual Arts and Press personnel: Kay Sondheimer for layout and design and Frances Battle for Print 

Management.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:iv ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:iv 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1

BASICS .......................................................................................... 1

Defi nitions ..........................................................................................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 .................................... 9

Transformation of the Department of Defense .....................................9

Transforming Defense Acquisition ................................................10

Transformation Initiatives .............................................................11

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

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 ......................................18 

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

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

Defense Acquisition Portal .............................................................23

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:v ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:v 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
vi

Chapter 5

DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT: 

KEY PERSONNEL AND ORGANIZATIONS ........................ 24

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

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

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

Program Executive Offi cers ........................................................25

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

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

Component Chief Information Offi cers .....................................26

Direct-Reporting Program Managers ..........................................27

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

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

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

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

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

 Joint Requirements Oversight Council........................................31 

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

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

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 ...........................................................43 

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

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:vi ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:vi 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
vii

Acquisition Strategy Considerations ............................................44

 Pre-Systems Acquisition .............................................................44

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

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

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

INTERNET RESOURCES ....................................................... 61

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:vii ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:vii 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
viii

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:viii ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd Sec1:viii 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
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, offi ce 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 they are not described in this publication.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 1 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 1 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
2

1Materiel 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.

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 fulfi llment 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 

warfi ghting capabilities of DoD, such as advisory and assistance services.

Management includes a set of tasks required to accomplish a specifi ed 

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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 2 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 2 9/23/2009 11:01:58 AM /23/2009 11:01:58 AM
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 signifi cant impact on defense acquisition programs within the Executive Branch are the President, the Offi ce 

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 and 

execute national 

security policy

• Patriotism

• Personal ambition

• Re-election

• Sign legislation into law 

(President)

• Serve as Commander-inChief (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; 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 3 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 3 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
4

individual members of Congress; the Congressional Budget Offi ce; and 

the Government Accountability Offi ce. 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

• Re-election

• Conduct hearings

• Raise revenue; allocate 

funds

• Pass legislation 

• Perform oversight and 

review

• Balance national 

security and social 

needs

• Distribute federal dollars 

by district/state

• Maximize competition

• Control industry profi ts

• 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

• Profi t and growth

• Cash fl ow

• 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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 4 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 4 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
5

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

of the interrelationships among these key players. This fi gure also shows 

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

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

signifi cant, diverse, and often competing interests.

SUCCESSFUL DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM

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

the warfi ghter), 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 warfi ghter’s requirements.

Figure 1-1. The Program Manager’s Environment

CONGRESS

PROGRAMS/BUDGET

AUTHORIZATIONS

APPROPRIATIONS ($)

PROGRAM

MANAGER

MEDIA

PUBLIC

COURTS

ALLIES

INDUSTRY

USER

AUDITS/OVERSIGHT

TESTIMONY/REPORTS

POLICY

R/ EGULATIONS

R/ ESTRICTIONS

NATIONAL SUPPORT

LEGISLATION/REGULATION

LOBBY/PAC

PRODUCTS/SERVICES

CONTRACTS

EXECUTIVE

REGULATIONSO/ VERSIGHT

REPORTS P/ LANSB/ RIEFINGS

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 5 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 5 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
6

• For the Offi ce of the Secretary of Defense, success means a program 

that satisfi es national security objectives, provides a balanced force 

structure, and does not attract undue congressional scrutiny.

• 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 

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

• For the warfi ghter, 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 fi eld weapons and information technology systems) 

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

direction. Executive direction fl ows 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 (Goldwater-Nichols)

• Government Performance and Results Act (1993)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 6 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 6 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
7

• Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994

• Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009

• Annual authorization and appropriations legislation, which may 

contain substantial new or amended statutory requirements (like the 

FY2006 requirement for certifi cation of major defense acquisition 

programs prior to program initiation).

Most provisions of the laws listed above have been codifi ed 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 7 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 7 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
8

• Offi ce of Management and Budget Circular A-11 (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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 8 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 8 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
9

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.

Likely adversaries can be expected to pursue and adopt any 

methods and means that confer an advantage relative to U.S. 

military power -- including methods that violate widely accepted 

laws and conventions of war. Even an advanced military power can be expected to adopt some methods considered “irregular” by Western standards, while nonstate actors increasingly 

are acquiring and employing “regular” military capabilities. 

Rather than attempting to defeat U.S. forces in decisive battle, 

even militarily signifi cant states are likely to exploit increasingly inexpensive but lethal weapons in an erosion strategy aimed 

at weakening U.S. political resolve by infl icting mounting casualties over time.2

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

Transformation Planning Guidance provided a strategy for transforming 

“how we fi ght, 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.

For the foreseeable future, winning the Long War against 

 violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the

2Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, v3.0, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 15 Jan 2009. 

Available at <http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA493960&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD>. 3Combatant commanders are the commanders of the United Commands responsible for 

fi ghting the nation’s wars. 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 9 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 9 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
10

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

this confl ict, 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 fi ght hinges on 

the development of future joint warfi ghting 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 warfi ghting 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 

fi eld an initial increment of warfi ghting 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. warfi ghting 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 confl icts 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.

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 

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 10 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 10 9/23/2009 11:01:59 AM /23/2009 11:01:59 AM
11

with other major contractors to compete for the remaining defense contracts. For example, in 1982 there were 10 major U.S. producers of fi xedwing military aircraft. Today there are only three: Boeing, Lockheed 

Martin, 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 Certifi cation 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 

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 Confi guration Steering Board, 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 11 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 11 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
12

 competition and prototyping, and other best practices. Success of this initiative is defi ned 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 effi ciently 

deliver value for the warfi ghter.

Confi guration 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 signifi cant technical confi guration 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 identifi ed 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 Effi ciency of Weapons Platforms. The Department is taking steps 

to develop and provide program executive offi cers 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. 

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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 12 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 12 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
13

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 signifi cant 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 suffi ciently mature technology is used. Technology 

Readiness Assessments are used by DoD to verify technology maturity in 

a rigorous fashion. 

Requirements Management Certifi cation 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 Certifi cation Training 

Program for military and civilian requirements managers. The certifi cation program is a three-tiered construct. Level I (Basic) Certifi cation consists of the Capabilities-Based Planning Continuous Learning Module, 

which came online October 12, 2007. Level II (Intermediate) Certifi cation 

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 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. 

Specifi cally, the JRAC interfaces with combatant commanders through the 

Joint Staff to address unique joint warfi ghting needs.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 13 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 13 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
14

Item Unique Identifi er. Item unique identifi cation (IUID) provides for 

marking government-furnished property items with a machine-readable 

Unique Item Identifi er (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 identifi cation and pedigree information about the items. 

This information is used to ensure that accurate acquisition, repair, and 

deployment of items are effi cient 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 effi ciency 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 the United States 

acquire quality defense systems faster and at an affordable cost—and this 

is essential if this country is to maintain the world’s best warfi ghting forces. The cultural shifts in the acquisition process may be characterized by 

the following chart:

Changes in Emphasis

Characteristics of Defense Systems 

acquisition in the past:

Today the emphasis has 

shifted toward:

• Many new systems

• Focus on nuclear warfare 

• Technology-driven systems 

• Service-specifi c programs 

• Military-unique technology 

• Technology development

• Fewer new systems; modifi ed 

legacy systems 

• Conventional warfare 

• Affordability-driven systems

• Joint programs

• Commercial and dual-use technology

• Technology insertion

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 14 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 14 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
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 warfi ghter’s modernization requirements are met effi ciently and effectively in 

the shortest possible time.

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

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

controlling, and leading the combined efforts of participating/

assigned civilian and military personnel and organizations, 

for the management of a specifi c 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, 

schedule, and performance reporting to the Milestone Decision 

Authority. (DoDD 5000.01)

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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 15 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 15 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
16

6Functional disciplines refer to business and fi nancial management, logistics, systems 

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

Program management must fi rst 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, staffi ng, 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 offi cers, and others, whether 

assigned directly to the program offi ce 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 fi eld and the priority and funding constraints imposed by managers in the Pentagon and 

military service/defense agency headquarters.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 16 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 16 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
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 specifi c 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 offi ce 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 offi ce level. Program offi celevel 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 identifi ed 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 17 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 17 9/23/2009 11:02:00 AM /23/2009 11:02:00 AM
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 defi nitions and three overarching policies 

that govern the defense acquisition system: fl exibility, 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 simplifi ed and fl exible management framework for translating mission 

needs and technological opportunities into stable, affordable, and wellmanaged 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 major 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).

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 18 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 18 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
19

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 warfi ghting needs (i.e., mission defi ciencies 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 warfi ghter 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 

DoD 7000.14-R, prescribes the process for making decisions on funding 

for every element of the Department, including acquisition programs.

Figure 4-1. Three Major Decision-Support Systems

Effective Interaction

Essential for Success

Joint Capabilities

Integration and

Development

System

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting, and

Execution

Process 

Defense

Acquisition

System

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 19 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 19 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
20

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. 

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.

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 in accordance with 

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

Figure 4-2. Acquisition Categories, Weapons Systems 

(amounts in FY2000 constant dollars)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 20 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 20 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
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 offi ce 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 fi nal 

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 Offi cer 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 Offi ces, commanders of the Systems Command, and directreporting program managers (PMs) designate ACAT IV programs and 

may delegate milestone decision authority for such programs to a designated fl ag offi cer, Senior Executive Service offi cial, 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, 

7DoD components are the military departments, defense agencies, and unifi ed commands.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 21 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 21 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
22

 transmitting, and displaying information. Excluded are computer resources 

that are part of a weapon system or a highly classifi ed program. 

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. 

Category Criteria for Designation Decision Authority

ACAT IA • Major Automated Information 

System (MAIS)

 – Designated by the MDA 

 as an MAIS, or 

 – Estimated to exceed:

 ■ Program costs in any 

 single FY (all appro-

 priations), $32M, or

 ■ Total program costs (all 

 appropriations) from 

 beginning of Concept 

 Refi nement 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

• 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

Figure 4-3. Acquisition Categories, Automated Information Systems

(amounts in FY2000 constant dollars)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 22 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 22 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
23

• 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 fi nal milestone decision.

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

Interim Guidance for DoD Space System Acquisition Process, March 23, 

2009, 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 DoD Space Milestone Decision Authority 

(MDA) for all DoD Space Major Defense Acquisition Programs.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION PORTAL

In addition to the regulatory documents mentioned throughout this pamphlet, the Defense Acquisition Portal (DAP) can be accessed at <https://

dap.dau.mil>. The DAP, 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. 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 23 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 23 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
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 fi ndings 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.)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 24 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 24 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
25

This structure provides a clear line of authority running from the 

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

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

IAM programs. 

Program Executive Offi cers

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

Commission Report. A PEO is typically a general offi cer or Senior 

Executive Service (SES) civilian equivalent responsible for the fi rstline 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 dualhatted 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 offi cial 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 

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 25 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 25 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
26

ACAT ID/IAM

Programs 

Under Secretary of

Defense (AT&L)

Milestone Decision Authority

for ACAT IAM may be delegated.

Component

Acquisition

Executive (CAE)

Program

Executive

Officer (PEO)

Defense Acquisition

Executive (DAE)

Asst. Secretary or Equivalent

General Officer/SES Civilian

Col/LtCol/Civilian Equivalent

Note: Some 

PMs do not report 

through a PEO.

Program

Manager (PM)

Figure 5-1. DoD Acquisition Authority Chain

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 fi nal decision authority is at a lower level for the 

latter programs. 

Component Chief Information Offi cers

The DoD components each have chief information offi cers (CIOs) who 

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

automated information systems acquisition programs. 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 26 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 26 9/23/2009 11:02:01 AM /23/2009 11:02:01 AM
27

Direct-Reporting Program Managers 

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

These direct-reporting PMs are typically one- or two-star offi cers or 

SES civilian equivalents who manage priority programs of such a nature 

that direct access to the CAE is deemed appropriate. An example is 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 Offi ce of the USD(AT&L) has changed over 

time to refl ect the policies of the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

Currently, the offi ce has the following major subordinate staff elements. 

• Deputy Under Secretary for Acquisition and 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, Portfolio Systems Acquisition;

 - Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy and 

 Strategic Sourcing;

 - President, Defense Acquisition University;

 - Director, Defense Contract Management Agency; and

 - Director, Space and Intelligence Offi ce.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 27 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 27 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
28

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

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

following:

 - Director, Plans and Programs;

 - Director, Rapid Fielding;

 - Director, Research;

 - Director, Systems Engineering;

 - Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation;

 - Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency;

 - Director, Defense Technical Information Center.

• Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel 

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 

warfi ghter and improved fi nancial accountability. He or she also oversees the Business Transformation Agency, the organization accountable for delivery of common processes and systems supporting logistics, acquisition, fi nance, 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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 28 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 28 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
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 for Installations and Environment: 

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

sound manner.

Other offi cials 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, Test Resource Management Center;

 - Director, Administration;

 - Executive Director, Defense Science Board;

 - Director, Special Programs;

 - Director, Missile Defense Agency.

Some of the above-listed offi cials 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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 29 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 29 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
30

the weapon systems overarching integrated product teams that advise 

the Defense Acquisition Board.

• Director, Systems Engineering: Approves systems engineering plans 

for ACAT ID programs and provides policy and oversight of systems 

engineering activities within the departments and agencies.

• Director, Developmental Test and Evaluation: Develops policies and 

procedures for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E), and reviews Test and Evaluation Master Plans (TEMPs) for compliance.

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

role in defense acquisition management. They are:

• Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information 

Integration/DoD Chief Information Offi cer: 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 traffi c 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-fi re 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 offi ce also provides a live-fi re test and evaluation 

 report to the Secretary of Defense, the USD(AT&L), and the Senate 

and House Committees on Authorizations and Appropriations on 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 30 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 30 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
31

whether covered systems (primarily ACAT I and ACAT II systems) 

meet survivability and lethality requirements. 

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.

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 offi cer 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.

Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) 

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

determining warfi ghting capability needs, and validates and approves these 

needs for ACAT I and ACAT IA programs that have a potentially signifi -

cant impact in allied and coalition operations. The JROC is chaired by the 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 31 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 31 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
32

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. The JROC is assisted 

in its duties by the Joint Capabilities Board (JCB). The JCB validates and 

approves ACAT II and below programs that affect joint warfi ghting and 

require an expanded joint staff review.

INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAMS 

The defense integrated product team (IPT) concept was adapted from 

commercial business to streamline an antiquated, ineffi cient, 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;

• Qualifi ed, 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 offi ce—an overarching integrated product team 

(OIPT) at the Offi ce 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 Offi ce of the USD(AT&L). 

OIPTs for major automated information systems are headed by an offi cial 

from the Offi ce of the ASD(NII). 

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

staff, the Joint Staff, and other defense staff principals or their representatives 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 32 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 32 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
33

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-fi ts-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 offi ce 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, fi nally, documenting 

a quality test and evaluation master plan that is acceptable to all organizational levels when fi rst 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 fi nalized. 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 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. 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 33 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 33 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
34

COMPONENT-LEVEL OVERSIGHT

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

process that 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 and Marine Corps) 

• Acquisition Strategy Panels/Air Force 

Review Boards

• 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)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 34 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 34 9/23/2009 11:02:02 AM /23/2009 11:02:02 AM
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 warfi ghting 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 warfi ghter to successfully execute the missions assigned to them are identifi ed 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 defi ne gaps in warfi ghting capabilities and propose solutions. The 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) 3170 series and the JCIDS 

Manual provide policy and procedures for identifying, describing and justifying the needs for future warfi ghting capabilities.

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 

Assessment (J-8). It is composed of general and fl ag offi cer representatives of the military services.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 35 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 35 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
36

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

the capability need and where it fi ts 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.

A Joint DOTMLPF Change Recommendation (DCR) may request additional numbers of existing commercial or non-developmental items previously produced or deployed in addition to non-materiel changes to resolve 

gaps in warfi ghting capabilities

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 phase of the acquisition process.

During the engineering and manufacturing development 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 

refi ned performance thresholds from the CDD based on lessons learned 

during the engineering and manufacturing development 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 36 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 36 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
37

IDENTIFYING NEEDED CAPABILITIES

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

JCIDS (see Figure 6-2). The CBA identifi es 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 refi ne 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 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. 

LRIP — Low-Rate Initial Production

MDD — Materiel Development Decision

Joint Capabilities

Integration & 

Development System

Draft

CDD

CDD CPD

LRIP

MS-C

Technology

Development ICD Engineering &

Manufacturing Development

Materiel

Solution

MDD Analysis MS-A MS-B

CDD — Capability Development Document

CPD — Capability Production Document

ICD — Initial Capabilities Document

Figure 6-1. JCIDS Process & Acquisition Decisions

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 37 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 37 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
38

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 specifi c 

capability proposal.” Typical sponsors of JCIDS analysis are the Training 

and Doctrine Command in the Army, the Center for Naval Analysis and/

or the Offi ce 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 Offi ce 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 

the level of joint staff review and certifi cation. For descriptions of JPDs 

currently in use, see the JCIDS Manual mentioned earlier.

Joint Capabilities

Integration & Development System 

(JCIDS) Analysis

 Capabilities-Based

Assessment

Non-Materiel

Solution Sponsor

DOTMLPF

Change

Request

Acquisition

System

DoDI 5000.02 Process

Materiel

Solution

Family of Joint

Operations Concepts

*** Concept of Operations

Initial

Capabilities

Document

Strategic

Guidance 

Figure 6-2. Capabilities-Based Assessment Process

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 38 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 38 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
39

Functional Capability Boards 

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

prioritization of joint warfi ghting 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 staffi ng 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 defi ned 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 

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 39 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 39 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
40

• 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 warfi ghting 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 warfi ghting 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 Internet Resources 

after last chapter). 

TESTING OF C4I INTEROPERABILITY REQUIREMENTS

All C4I systems having joint interoperability requirements, regardless 

of ACAT, and must be tested and certifi ed by the Joint Interoperability 

Test Command. This testing should be performed during developmental 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 40 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 40 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
41

 operational testing whenever possible to conserve resources. The Joint 

Staff, J-6, certifi es 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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 41 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 41 9/23/2009 11:02:03 AM /23/2009 11:02:03 AM
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.

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 provide both the PM and milestone decision authorities (MDAs) 

the framework with which to review acquisition programs, monitor and 

Technology

Development 

Engineering and

Manufacturing Development 

Production and

Deployment 

Sustainment

Post-CDR 

Assessment

Pre-Systems Acquisition

Materiel

Solution

Analysis

Materiel

Development

Decision 

User Needs

Technology Opportunities and Resources

A B C

Relationship to JCIDS

Initial Capabilities Document Capability Development Document Capability Production Document

s

s 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

s

Decision Point Milestone Review

FRP 

Decision

Review

Operations and

Support 

Program

Initiation IOC FOC 

Systems Acquisition

Figure 7-1. Defense Acquisition Management System

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 42 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 42 9/23/2009 11:02:04 AM /23/2009 11:02:04 AM
43

 administer progress, identify problems, and make corrections. The 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 fi nally, 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 warfi ghting 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 identifi es 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, and the Defense 

Acquisition Challenge Program.

Entrance and Exit Criteria

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

it must satisfy generic entrance criteria specifi ed by DoDI 5000.02 (for 

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 43 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 43 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
44

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 specifi ed by DoDI 5000.2 and any phase-specifi c 

exit criteria applicable to that specifi c 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 fi eld the fi rst 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 single design; 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 fi t 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 JCIDS document must be approved (see 

Chapter 6).

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 specifi c 

to the refi nement of materiel solution(s) identifi ed in the approved initial 

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 44 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 44 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
45

Materiel Development Decision (MDD). The MDD is the formal entry 

into the acquisition process and is required for all programs. At the MDD, 

the Joint Staff presents the JROCs recommendations, and the sponsoring 

Component presents the ICD. The MDA will decide the acquisition phase 

of entry, approve guidance for conduct of an analysis of alternative materiel solutions, and designate the lead DoD Component.

Materiel Solution Analysis Phase begins with a materiel development decision (MDD) by the MDA. During this phase a study called an analysis of 

alternatives is conducted to assess alternatives to provide the desired capability identifi ed 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. An analysis of alternatives 

and a technology development strategy are 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 identifi ed 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 fulfi lls 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. 

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 refi ne requirements.

The project exits technology development when an affordable program or 

increment of militarily useful capability has been identifi ed, the technology 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 45 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 45 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
46

has been demonstrated in a relevant environment, manufacturing risks 

have been identifi ed and assessed, a preliminary design review8

 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.9

 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 confi rm 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 phase. 

The MDA also certifi es 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, a preliminary design review has been conducted, 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 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 

8

 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 9

 The Milestone Decision Authority may initiate shipbuilding programs at Milestone A.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 46 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 46 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
47

such as anti-tamper; 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 (defi ned 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 defi ned; 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 

specifi cations and drawings completed and under confi guration management; planned corrective actions to hardware/software defi ciencies; 

adequate developmental testing; manufacturing feasibility and critical 

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

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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 47 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 47 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
48

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 satisfi es 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 signifi cant 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. 

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

necessary to provide production or production-representative articles for 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 48 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 48 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
49

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), establish an initial production base for the system, and permit an orderly increase in the production rate suffi cient to lead to full-rate production upon successful completion of operational (and live-fi re, 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-fi re 

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

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

communications, computer, and intelligence supportability and certifi cation (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 fi eld 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 specifi ed in the capability production document. Follow-on 

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

confi rm operational effectiveness and suitability or verify the correction of 

defi ciencies. The operations and support phase begins as soon as the fi rst 

systems are fi elded/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. 

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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 49 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 49 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
50

specifi ed 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; confi guration 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 life cycle (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 warfi ghter’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. 

For additional information on these and numerous other activities that support the acquisition process, see the Defense Acquisition Guidebook at 

<http://acc.dau.mil/dag>.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 50 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 50 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
51

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 signifi cant 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 offi ce 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 fi t 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 

defi nitive as the program matures. Acquisition strategies are tailored to 

the specifi c 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, modifi cation, 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); 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 51 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 51 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
52

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 fi nancial 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 specifi ed 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 offi cer, 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 confi rm program progress or to conform to statutory dictate. After 

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

acquisition program baseline by the PM. Testing includes developmental test and evaluation, operational test and evaluation, and live-fi re test 

and evaluation, as appropriate. The PM will coordinate all testing into an 

effi cient continuum, closely integrated with requirements defi nition and 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 52 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 52 9/23/2009 11:02:05 AM /23/2009 11:02:05 AM
53

 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-specifi c tasks selected to 

track progress in important technical, schedule, or risk-managementareas. 

They act as “gates” that, when successfully passed, demonstrate that the 

program is on track to achieve its fi nal 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., fi rst fl ight). 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 system’s 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, verifi cation, deployment, operations and support, disposal and user 

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

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 53 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 53 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
54

Technology Maturity: The management and mitigation of technology 

and technology integration risk, which allows less costly and less timeconsuming 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 54 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 54 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
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, fi elding, 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.

Figure 8-1. Resource Allocation Process

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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 55 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 55 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
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 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/offi ces. 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 refl ect real-world changes. The following chart shows responsibility for each product.

Activity OSD Action Offi ce Products

 On Year:

Planning Under Secretary of Defense 

(Policy)

Guidance for Development of 

the Force

Under Secretary of Defense 

(Policy) and Director, Program 

Analysis & Evaluation

Joint Programming Guidance

Programming Director, Program Analysis & 

Evaluation

Program Decision Memoranda

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) and 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)

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 56 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 56 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
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 Cost 

Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), and the Deputy Commander 

for U.S. Special Operations Command. The Director, CAPE, 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 fulfi lls the requirement for the DoD Strategic Plan required by the 

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

and infl uences 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 refl ects the 2-year cycle of PPBE.

Year 1. Off Year: The fi rst 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 refl ects 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 may be 

no POM or Budget Estimate Submit (BES) to the Offi ce 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 57 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 57 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
58

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

strategy (NSS) must be issued within 150 days of taking offi ce. 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). 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 that this year so that a QDR can 

be provided to Congress concurrent with the submission of the new administration’s fi rst 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 GDF is issued early in 

the year, followed by the JPG around May that will guide a concurrent 

POM/budget review 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 fi nalized. Concurrent 

with the fall Offi ce 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 off 

year 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.

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 58 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 58 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
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 specifi es 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 Offi ce 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 fl ows out of the 

U.S. Treasury. The four phases of the resource allocation process overlap 

(see Figure 8-2, next page).

The current fi scal 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 offi cials 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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 59 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 59 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
60

part 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.

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

CY10 CY11 CY12

Planning Enactment Execution

Programming &

Budgeting Planning Enactment

Enactment Execution

Execution

Programming &

Budgeting Planning

FY11 

FY10 & prior 

FY11 & prior 

FY12 FY12 & prior 

GDF/JPG* FY13–17

POM FY12–17

Budget FY12–13

FY13 FY13 &

prior

GDF/JPG FY14–19

GDF/JPG*

FY12–17

FYDP changes FY13–17

Budget changes FY13

LEGEND: GDF—Guidance for Development of the Force; JPG: Joint Programming Guidance; POM: Program Objectives Memorandum 

J FMAM JASOND J

Execution

J FMAM JASOND J J FMAM JASOND J

POM FY14–19

Budget FY14–15

Programming &

Budgeting

*GDF SECDEF option in off year

Figure 8-2. Resource Allocation Process – Overlap

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 60 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 60 9/23/2009 11:02:06 AM /23/2009 11:02:06 AM
61

INTERNET RESOURCES

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 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 Offi cer

www.dod.mil/nii

Joint Capability Technology 

Demonstrations

www.acq.osd.mil/actd

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff www.jcs.mil

CJCSI 3170 series and JCIDS Manual https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.

aspx?id=267116

Defense Acquisition Guidebook http://acc.dau.mil/dag

Defense Acquisition Portal https://dap.dau.mil

Defense Acquisition University www.dau.mil

Defense Acquisition University 

Continuous Learning Center

http://clc.dau.mil

Director, Operational Test and 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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 61 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 61 9/23/2009 11:02:07 AM /23/2009 11:02:07 AM
62

Organization/Document WWW Location

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/index.

html

Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/index.

html

Offi ce of the Secretary of Defense www.defenselink.mil

Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

www.acq.osd.mil

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 62 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 62 9/23/2009 11:02:07 AM /23/2009 11:02:07 AM
63

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 identifi ed 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 fi nd this publication a useful reference tool?

YES NO 

How 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 satisfi ed 2 = Satisfi ed 3 = No opinion 4 = Dissatisfi ed 5 = Very dissatisfi ed

 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

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 63 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 63 9/23/2009 11:02:07 AM /23/2009 11:02:07 AM
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 

Intro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 64 ntro to Def Acq Mgmt 9th Ed FINAL.indd 64 9/23/2009 11:02:07 AM /23/2009 11:02:07 AM