DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release by DOPSR on 12/01/2015; 

SR Case # 16-S-0314 applies. Distribution is unlimited. 
SD-22 – Diminishing Manufacturing Sources 

and Material Shortages (DMSMS) 

A Guidebook of Best Practices for Implementing a 

Robust DMSMS Management Program 

Defense Standardization Program Office 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 5100 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220 

703-767-6888 

https://www.dsp.dla.mil

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release by DOPSR on 12/01/2015; 

SR Case # 16-S-0314 applies. Distribution is unlimited. 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Message from the Director 

Because Department of Defense (DoD) system life cycles are longer than technology life cycles, 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) issues are inevitable. DoD cannot 

afford to be reactive in this area—reactivity may lead to a combination of schedule delays, readiness 

degradations, and higher cost. 

Leadership attention must be brought to bear on this problem and adequate resources must be provided 

to minimize its impact. The return on investment from these resources can be substantial because 

resources devoted to proactivity lengthen the window of opportunity to take corrective action. There will 

be a larger number of low-cost options available when the window to address the issue is longer. 

Therefore, cost-effectiveness improves. This is the primary theme of the better buying power initiatives—

better value for the warfighter. 

This guidebook—SD-22, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages: A Guidebook of 

Best Practices for Implementing a Robust DMSMS Management Program—provides best practices for 

robust and proactive DMSMS management. It explains things to do and why those things are important. 

Examples include the following: 



i











Fully fund DMSMS management activities and resolutions and ensure that the right people are 

trained and involved. 

Get the contract language right. This is critical to proactive DMSMS management. 

It’s never too early to begin. Starting early in design, proactively monitor critical, highly vulnerable 

tems, software, assemblies, and materials to identify potential problems before negative impacts 

occur. 

Link DMSMS health assessments with the program’s product roadmaps to mitigate issues before 

they materialize. 

Ensure that resolutions minimize life-cycle costs; solutions that are inexpensive upfront may have 

significant future cost. 

Obtain comments from the DMSMS community on designs and redesigns to avoid the inclusion 

of obsolete items. 

This guidebook, while designed primarily for the DMSMS practitioner, should also be useful for program 

managers, engineers, and life-cycle logisticians. It is updated periodically. This version of the SD-22

replaces the version published in February 2015. Recommended changes to this document should be 

addressed to the Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 5100, Fort 

Belvoir, VA 22060-6220, or e-mail at DSPO@dla.mil. 

, Defense Standardization Program Office 

1 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Contents 

SD-22 – Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) ................................................iv

A Guidebook of Best Practices for Implementing a Robust DMSMS Management Program..................................iv

Message from the Director ................................................................................................................... 1

Contents 2

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

1.1. Scope and Objective......................................................................................................... 6

1.2. DMSMS Mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 7

1.3. The Importance of a DMSMS Management Program........................................................10

1.4. Overview of the DMSMS Management Process...............................................................13

1.5. Organization of This Document ......................................................................................13

2. DMSMS Management Links to the Defense Acquisition System..............................................15

2.1. DMSMS Policy .............................................................................................................16

2.2. DMSMS Guidance for the Program Manager...................................................................17

2.3. Design Effectiveness and DMSMS..................................................................................20

2.4. Process Efficiency and DMSMS.....................................................................................27

2.5. Technology and Supply Chain Management ....................................................................31

3. Prepare: DMSMS Management Program Infrastructure ...........................................................33

3.1. Establish the Strategic Underpinnings for DMSMS Management ......................................33

3.2. Develop a DMSMS Management Plan ............................................................................35

3.3. Form a DMSMS Management Team...............................................................................39

3.4. Establish DMSMS Operational Processes........................................................................45

4. Identify: DMSMS Monitoring and Surveillance ......................................................................55

4.1. Prioritize Systems..........................................................................................................56

4.2. Identify and Procure Monitoring and Surveillance Tools...................................................58

4.3. Collect and Prepare Item Data.........................................................................................59

4.4. Analyze Item Availability...............................................................................................71

4.5. Collect and Update Programmatic and Logistics Data.......................................................84

4.6. Develop Health Assessments ..........................................................................................85

5. Assess: DMSMS Impact Assessment.....................................................................................86

5.1. Identify Data Needs .......................................................................................................88

5.2. Assess Impact of a DMSMS Issue...................................................................................90

6. Analyze: DMSMS Resolution Determination .........................................................................96

6.1. Identify Resolution Cost Elements ..................................................................................96

6.2. Identify and Define DMSMS Resolution Options.............................................................97

6.3. Determine the Preferred DMSMS Resolution................................................................. 102

7. Implement: Implementation of DMSMS Resolutions ............................................................110

2
SD-22 – January 2016 

7.1. Secure DMSMS Resolution Funding .............................................................................111

7.2. Implement DMSMS Resolution ....................................................................................117

Appendix A. Obsolescence and Its Relationship to DMSMS...............................................................120

Appendix B. Developing DMSMS Workforce Competencies..............................................................121

Appendix C. Contracting..................................................................................................................125

C.1.Determining Whether to Contract for DMSMS Management...........................................125

C.2.DMSMS Management Activities in Contracts by Life-Cycle Phase ................................. 129

C.3.Examples of DMSMS Management Contract Language..................................................130

Appendix D. DMSMS Management Questions for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews.................140

Appendix E. DMSMS-Related Questions for Logistics Assessments ...................................................155

Appendix F. Counterfeit Items and DMSMS .....................................................................................160

F.1. Background.................................................................................................................160

F.2. Summary of DoD Counterfeit Policy and Key Definitions ..............................................164

F.3. The Impact of Counterfeit Items on DMSMS Management.............................................165

Appendix G. Accessing Organic Services and Capabilities to Mitigate DMSMS Issues.........................169

Appendix H. DMSMS Knowledge Sharing Portal..............................................................................170

Appendix I. DMSMS Quality Assurance Process...............................................................................171

I.1. Quality Plan ................................................................................................................171

I.2. Metrics........................................................................................................................172

I.3. Process Analysis..........................................................................................................173

Appendix J. DMSMS Program Capability Levels...............................................................................175

Appendix K. Lead-Free Electronics and DMSMS Resolutions............................................................179

Appendix L. Complete Department of Commerce Cost Survey Results................................................181

Appendix M. Abbreviations .............................................................................................................188

 ............................................................................................................................................................ 

Figures 

No table of figures entries found.

Tables

No table of figures entries found.

3 
SD-22 – January 2016 

1. Introduction 

1.1. Scope and Objective 

A Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) issue is the loss, or impending 

loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of items, raw materials, or software.1 The Department of Defense 

(DoD) loses a manufacturer or supplier when that manufacturer or supplier discontinues production 

and/or support of needed items, raw materials, or software or when the supply of raw material is no 

longer available. While traditionally thought of as applying to electronic items, it is important to be 

cognizant that a DMSMS issue can arise regarding any item within a system, including software and nonelectronic components—materials and structural, mechanical, and electrical (MaSME) items. 

DMSMS issues can be caused by many factors—such as low-volume market demand, new or evolving 

science or technology, changes to detection limits, toxicity values, and regulations related to chemicals 

and materials—that significantly affect the DoD supply chain and industrial base. Another aspect of 

DMSMS is when an item, although still available commercially, no longer functions as intended because 

of hardware2–electronic and MaSME items, software, and/or requirements changes to the system. This is 

often referred to as functional obsolescence.3 Any of these situations may endanger an ongoing 

production capability and/or the life-cycle support of a weapon system or any training, support, or test 

equipment already in the field.4 Ultimately, DMSMS issues affect materiel readiness and operational 

availability, which, in turn, affect both combat operations and safety. 

No system or program is immune from DMSMS issues; they are inevitable. They affect short- and longlived systems; repairables and consumables; space-based, air-based, ground-based, and sea-based 

equipment (including support and test equipment); and so on. DMSMS issues are not confined to piece 

parts or devices; obsolescence may occur at the part, module, component, equipment, or system level. 

DMSMS issues are also not limited to defense-unique items; commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) items 

represent a significant obsolescence problem, because such items are most susceptible to market forces. 

Consequently, robust DMSMS management is needed. DMSMS management is a multidisciplinary 

process to identify issues resulting from obsolescence, loss of manufacturing sources, or material 

shortages; to assess the potential for negative impacts on schedule and/or readiness; to analyze potential 

mitigation strategies; and then to implement the most cost-effective strategy. DMSMS management has 

been most closely associated with electronics. However, DMSMS management also should be concerned 

with materials, mechanical items, and software.5 This standardization document, which replaces the 

February 2015 version of SD-22, is intended primarily for the DMSMS practitioner community. It is a 

guidebook of best practices for implementing an effective DMSMS management program throughout the 

system life cycle. Because DMSMS considerations affect how a system is designed and sustained, 

program managers (PMs), engineers, and life-cycle logisticians (including supply chain managers, 

inventory managers, and maintainers) are also affected. Consequently, as beneficiaries of DMSMS 

 

1 The term “software” encompasses COTS, custom, or any combination thereof of firmware, 

middleware, wrappers, gateways, firewalls, application programs, and operating systems. 

2

 Hereafter, except if otherwise specified, if “hardware” is used alone, it refers to both electronic and 

MaSME items. 

3 The term “obsolescence” is similar, yet different, from DMSMS. The differences are small—DMSMS 

encompasses (1) items that are not obsolete but where there are shortages and (2) obsolete items that 

are out of production and there is demand. Both terms are used interchangeably throughout this 

document with a distinction being made where needed for clarity. For more information on the relationship 

between obsolescence and DMSMS, please see Appendix A, “Obsolescence and Its Relationship to 

DMSMS.”

4 The word “system,” as used in this document, encompasses weapon systems and training, support, 

and test equipment. 

5 Generally, the use of the word “item” in this document is intended to be all-inclusive of parts, 

assemblies, software, and material. 

4 
SD-22 – January 2016 

management best practices, these communities and their associated policymakers are also part of the 

intended audience. 

The purpose of this document is fivefold: 











Create awareness of the extent and impact of DMSMS issues on DoD systems. 

Define a robust DMSMS management process that a PM can use to build an effective DMSMS 

management program. 

Define DMSMS support metrics to measure the effectiveness of a robust DMSMS management 

program. 

Promote affordable and efficient program support through rapid and cost-effective DMSMS 

management best practices and resolutions that take into account equipment life cycles, 

technology changes, and planned obsolescence. 

Promote the exercise of DMSMS management best practices throughout the acquisition life 

cycle. 

1.2. DMSMS Mechanisms 

Whether dealing with hardware–electronic and MaSME items or software, obsolescence is ultimately 

driven by one of a number of DMSMS mechanisms, influenced by the short life cycle of technology as 

compared to the long life cycle of defense systems. Figure 1 illustrates the symmetrical nature of both 

first-order and lower-order obsolescence mechanisms for hardware and software. Although the figure 

may give an impression of a sequential progression of events, that is not the case. Hardware and 

software obsolescence may occur simultaneously. To help drive home the point that both hardware and 

software are part of the same process, the figure shows “hardware and software monitoring” and 

“DMSMS resolution identification” as single boxes, rather than hardware- and software-specific boxes. 

Both hardware and software may also become functionally obsolete, as a secondary impact of some 

other change to the system. 

There are two broad obsolescence mechanisms: first-order obsolescence and lower-order, or derived, 

obsolescence. First-order obsolescence is directly driven by market factors and regulation changes that 

affect DoD’s ability to buy, license, obtain support for, or use hardware and software. Lower-order 

obsolescence is functional obsolescence caused by hardware or software changes made to address firstorder obsolescence, perform a proactive upgrade, or respond to a requirements change. Hardware and 

software monitoring identifies instances of first-order obsolescence. This monitoring also identifies 

functional obsolescence, resulting from proactive upgrades to hardware and software, in addition to, at 

least in part, driving the need to make proactive upgrades. 

Figure 1 Mechanisms for Hardware and Software Obsolescence 

5 
SD-22 – January 2016 





First-order obsolescence situations should be identifiable from hardware and software monitoring of the 

effects of market forces. When first-order obsolescence does occur, though, some of the root causes are 

as follows: 

Hardware–electronic items. Sales and support may be terminated because of some combination 

of low demand, demand for new technologies and capabilities, lack of profitability, vulnerabilities, 

loss of production capability because of modernization or disposal of manufacturing equipment or 

mergers/acquisitions, unavailability of items, unavailability of materials, loss of repair support 

expertise, and so forth. For example, manufacturing tooling may be disposed of after production 

is completed. 

Software. Competitive market forces can also lead to diminished capability. Companies generally 

do not find it sufficiently profitable to apply resources to support old versions of software; they 

6 
SD-22 – January 2016 

prefer that customers upgrade to the most recent products. Mergers and acquisitions may lead to 

a similar situation. A program’s ability to use software is inextricably linked to obtaining a license 

or being able to purchase the software from a reliable source. Consequently, diminished ability to 

use software may occur when newer versions of the software are available or there is no longer 

an ability to read the digital media on which the software is delivered. In addition, there is a 

diminished ability to use software when its support terminates. Software support includes product 

enhancements to increase capability or to decrease vulnerability to malicious attacks, error 

correction, and general support for its application in particular environments. If support is no 

longer obtainable, updated security patches will not be available, bugs cannot be fixed, routine 

maintenance cannot occur, and modifications can no longer be made. For example, current 

software may not satisfy an emerging information assurance policy requirement or a 

cybersecurity protection requirement. Software support also terminates when the software 

development tools for building, testing, and integrating the software are no longer available, for 

example, compilers, databases, regression testing capability,6 and configuration management 

(CM) software. Regardless of the market force that leads to diminished software capability, 

programs should be aware of associated security concerns and evaluate potential information 

assurance implications. 

Hardware–MaSME items. Market forces also lead to DMSMS issues for hardware–MaSME items, 

but not quite in the same way as for electronic items and software. Unlike electronic items, 

MaSME items are typically on the market for long periods of time and, depending on the situation 

or support posture, are often repairable. Manufacturing processes for structural, mechanical, and 

electrical items have also remained relatively stable over time. Principal factors for DMSMS 

issues pertaining to materials (including critical materials resident within the supply chain) and 

structural, mechanical, and electrical items include the following: 



o

o

o

o

Hazardous materials are being used. Regulations on hazardous materials may become 

stricter (e.g., Restriction of Hazardous Substances). Such materials may be banned 

completely or become difficult and/or prohibitively expensive to use or obtain (e.g., Freon 

or lead). 

The supplier goes out of business or through a merger and acquisition in which the 

existing product line no longer fits in the new product portfolio. This is more likely with 

small and/or financially vulnerable suppliers that supply items to larger companies that 

use the items to assemble their product. Item lines that are sold from original companies 

to other businesses are vulnerable to being discontinued. 

The supplier’s business case is no longer viable. This may occur with low-demand 

products potentially containing exotic materials that are difficult to manufacture or involve 

major disruptions to more profitable business activities. This may also occur as a result of 

regulation changes (e.g., tungsten rhenium wire was affected because of energy-related 

regulations on the disuse of incandescent light bulbs; Freon). 

Supply-constrained materials are used. There may be U.S. or foreign regulations or 

supplier policies that affect availability. For example, a foreign source may limit its exports 

or not be willing to sell its product for a DoD application. The United States Code, Title 

10, §2533b imposes restrictions on some specialty metals, for example, steel (specific 

mixes); metal alloys containing nickel, iron-nickel, and cobalt base alloys; titanium and 

titanium alloys; and zirconium and zirconium base alloys.7

 

6

 Regression testing seeks to ensure that software changes have not introduced new faults. 

7 10 U.S. Code §2533b, “Requirement to buy strategic materials critical to national security from 

American sources; exceptions,” Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute website, 

www.law.cornell. edu/uscode/text/10/2533b, accessed July 31, 2015. 

7 
SD-22 – January 2016 

o The tooling is no longer available. Depending on the specific situation, resolving this 

issue may involve substantial time and cost. 

Technology change may also be a factor, but this is often associated with COTS items for which the 

market situation is variable. Some COTS items (e.g., photographic equipment or network controllers) 

behave similarly to electronic items and software. Other COTS items (e.g., motors and pumps) behave 

more like MaSME items. 

When a program takes an action to resolve first-order obsolescence or to proactively upgrade, the firstorder changes implemented have the potential to cause lower-order or derived obsolescence. Below are 

descriptions of the different factors that influence the need for hardware or software changes and how 

such changes can cause lower-order obsolescence: 





First-order hardware changes can result from one of three factors. First, robust DMSMS 

management seeks to refresh items before they become obsolete. Proactive technology refresh 

results in a hardware change. Second, hardware changes may be driven by implementing 

engineering resolutions to address DMSMS issues caused by the termination of sales or support 

of existing hardware. The resulting engineering resolutions range from the use of a simple 

substitute that relies on an existing replacement item to the redesign of the item to redesign at a 

higher level of assembly. Finally, a new performance requirement may necessitate a hardware 

change. Regardless of the factors influencing first-order hardware changes, lower-order hardware 

or software obsolescence may result because the existing hardware or software no longer 

functions as intended. For example, legacy software may not work, or may not work correctly, on 

new hardware configurations for a variety of reasons, such as data transmittal, storage, access, 

processing, display, interface issues, operating system capability issues, or timing concerns. 

Similarly, legacy hardware may suffer from physical incompatibility. 

First-order software changes can result from factors that are analogous to the three factors that 

cause first-order hardware changes. Software upgrades or technology refreshments are not 

always compatible with other software applications that have been tested on or with earlier 

versions. For example, an upgrade to a COTS operating system may no longer support the 

assumptions made by the existing firmware; consequently, the firmware may become functionally 

obsolete. DMSMS resolutions implemented because of the inability to use software also lead to a 

first-order software change. Finally, first-order software obsolescence may be driven by changes 

to performance requirements that necessitate a software change. For example, scalability may be 

an issue if the transaction volume changes significantly. Greater processing power and memory 

size may also be required. The above rationale for first-order hardware changes leading to lowerorder software or hardware obsolescence is directly applicable to first-order software changes 

leading to lower-order software or hardware obsolescence. 

1.3. The Importance of a DMSMS Management Program 

Ultimately, DMSMS management is important for a simple reason: it protects programs. Robust DMSMS 

management of inevitable obsolescence is the most cost-effective and efficient way to 







minimize the scope of DMSMS-related out-of-cycle redesigns when they cannot be eliminated or 

avoided, 

eliminate DMSMS-caused production schedule impacts, and 

eliminate readiness degradations caused by DMSMS issues. 

These three objectives of DMSMS management minimize the impact on the cost, schedule, and 

performance of a program, three primary concerns of a PM. 

Because DMSMS management has a significant effect on many aspects of a program, it is not a 

standalone function, nor does it benefit a single stakeholder. DMSMS management is inherently linked 

with reliability, maintainability, supportability, and availability. Within this context, it is important to plan for, 

minimize, and manage the risks associated with DMSMS issues, due to their detrimental impact on 

materiel readiness, operational mission capability, safety of personnel, and affordability. 

8 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Materiel readiness is an immediate and urgent concern for the warfighter. Missions are affected if 

equipment cannot be supported; either the equipment is not available for the mission, or it cannot be 

sustained throughout the mission. DMSMS issues can negatively affect supportability if the items needed 

to repair a system are not available or are in scarce supply. It is unacceptable for a system to be nonmission-capable due to a DMSMS issue. To allow a DMSMS situation to progress to the point of affecting 

a mission (because items are not available) is contrary to DoD policy and is an indication of ineffective 

DMSMS management. In addition, ineffective DMSMS management can cause the costs for items to 

rapidly escalate. 

A robust DMSMS management program is the most effective and efficient way to minimize readiness 

risks due to DMSMS issues, deliver better buying power, and improve overall life-cycle management. 

DMSMS resolutions are based on the most cost-effective approach to managing the problem before 

operations are affected. The cost avoidance by being proactive can be substantial, as discussed below: 









The B-1 program office was informed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that a radar 

system was experiencing obsolescence and the recommended system upgrade needed to 

resolve the problems would cost $350 million. DMSMS monitoring and surveillance indicated only 

minimal obsolescence existed, and the analysis team identified readily available alternate parts to 

replace the ones identified as obsolete. The bottom line was that obsolescence and supportability 

issues were easily overcome, allowing adequate cost-effective system support through continued 

organic depot repair with an estimated 10-year cost avoidance of $316 million. 

The Apache obsolescence working group shares power equally between the government and 

contractor. Issues and details are discussed and resolved within this small team with an 

expansion of participation as needed from other functional disciplines. An empowered Apache 

program office champion drives recommendations to reality. This model has resulted in early 

discovery and intervention of obsolescence risks in an environment of agreed-to mitigation plans. 

The benefit has been no part shortages or schedule delays, identification of funding to mitigate 

obsolescence that does not require “robbing Peter to pay Paul,” and required redesign blended 

into planned design updates. The success of this model and this program is best represented by 

the cost avoidance by being proactive—over $200 million—realized by this working group across 

all configurations and life-cycle phases of this system. 

The Virginia-class submarine program integrated DMSMS management into the construction 

program early in the design/build process. To ensure consistency and repeatability of results, the 

program office established a technology refreshment integrated product team (IPT), formalized a 

standard operating procedure, developed a memorandum of agreement with the Naval Supply 

Systems Command for the advanced procurement of spares, and established a budget. As a 

result, the program resolved more than 1,260 obsolescence issues and reaped more than $159 

million of documented cost avoidance by being proactive since inception. 

A foreign military sales (FMS) DMSMS team was asked to look into an obsolete part (a digital 

display indicator) needed for critical support equipment used by FMS customers. The OEM was 

unable to fulfill a request for the support equipment due to the obsolete part and quoted $2.6 

million for redesign. The FMS DMSMS team examined an available drawing, identified the 

original component manufacturer part number, researched the supply system, located the original 

component manufacturer, and was able to obtain 50 of the parts needed (more than the required 

quantity) for $327,000, resulting in a $2.3 million cost avoidance by being proactive. The extra 

parts were transferred to the inventory of another platform using the same equipment. 

The examples demonstrate how DMSMS management can result in better value for the taxpayer and the 

warfighter. However, benefits extend well beyond these examples. Since 2010, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has signed and issued several memorandums, one 

building on the other, providing specific guidance for improving the way DoD does business. The 2014 

9 
SD-22 – January 2016 

“Better Buying Power 3.0” white paper augmented and modified the 2012 “Better Buying Power 2.0” 

memorandum, establishing the following focus areas:8

1. Achieve affordable programs. 

2. Achieve dominant capabilities while controlling life-cycle costs. 

3. Incentivize productivity in industry and government. 

4. Incentivize innovation in industry and government. 

5. Eliminate unproductive processes and bureaucracy. 

6. Promote effective competition. 

7. Improve tradecraft in the acquisition of services. 

8. Improve the professionalism of the total acquisition workforce. 

Robust DMSMS risk management is a contributor especially important to focus areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. 

DMSMS management helps target affordability and control cost growth (focus areas 1 and 2) in several 

ways. By accounting for DMSMS issues during design (trades), future operating and support (O&S) costs 

will be controlled and possibly reduced. For example, the use of standardized parts and the latest 

technologies can reduce the impact of DMSMS issues during sustainment by enhancing the 

interchangeability, reliability, and availability of items. Robust DMSMS management may enable 

programs to control cost by achieving “should cost” estimates.

To incentivize productivity and innovation in industry (focus areas 3 and 4), robust DMSMS management 

will cultivate long-term relationships with suppliers using performance-based logistics precepts and other 

means. Given such relationships, suppliers should be less likely to discontinue an item, and if they decide 

to discontinue the item for business reasons, the government is more likely to have advanced warning, 

placing it in a better position to plan an alternative course of action. This planning could be done in 

coordination with industry. A new initiative in “Better Buying Power 3.0” is to emphasize technology 

insertion and refresh in program planning. DMSMS management results should be a key driver of 

technology refresh plans. The ultimate goal is to replace items before they become obsolete. 

Promoting effective competition (focus area 6) by developing alternate sources of items with DMSMS 

issues is also a key element of robust DMSMS management. Both open systems architecture and data 

rights in designs enable competition by providing a framework for decomposing a system into items and 

obtaining the necessary technical information for them. Modular open systems architecture is not only a 

driver of innovation, it is also an important DMSMS-related design consideration, because substitution of 

alternative items becomes easier. Robust DMSMS management will secure data rights and bills of 

materials (BOMs) for items highly likely to face DMSMS issues. 

Service contracts (focus area 7) are often used for system support. Clauses in these contracts may 

require a contractor to manage DMSMS issues. Those clauses must have the right incentives for robust 

DMSMS management, including effective metrics and notification of issues to the government as soon as 

they are discovered. For example, if the contractor is concerned only with availability, then costs may get 

out of control. The proper incentives must be in place for the contractor to manage DMSMS issues, 

 

8 Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, memorandum, “Better 

Buying Power 2.0: Continuing the Pursuit of Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” 

November 13, 2012. 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, memorandum, “Implementation 

Directive for Better Buying Power 2.0—Achieving Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense 

Spending,” April 24, 

2013. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, “Better Buying Power 3.0,” 

September 19, 2014. 

10
SD-22 – January 2016 

considering both industry and government perspectives. This is where the initiative to improve tradecraft 

in the acquisition of services comes into play. 

1.4. Overview of the DMSMS Management Process 

The DMSMS management process is straightforward. As illustrated in Figure 2, it has five steps: 











Prepare. Develop the DMSMS strategic underpinnings (e.g., vision and focus) and a DMSMS 

management plan (DMP) to implement the strategic underpinnings for the program. Form a 

DMSMS management team (DMT) representing all stakeholders. Establish, document, and 

resource DMSMS management processes for the DMT to execute the DMP. 

Identify. Secure access to logistics, programmatic, and item data and to monitoring and 

surveillance tools. Identify items with immediate or near-term obsolescence issues. 

Assess. Considering the population of problem items, identify and prioritize the items and 

assemblies most at risk for current and future readiness or availability impacts. 

Analyze. Examine the problem items with near-term readiness or availability impacts first. 

Develop a set of potential DMSMS resolutions for the items and their higher-level assemblies. 

Determine the most cost-effective resolution. 

Implement. Budget, fund, contract or arrange for, schedule, and execute the selected resolutions 

for the high-priority items. 

Figure 2 Steps in the DMSMS Management Process 

Each of these steps applies throughout the life cycle, from early technology development through 

sustainment. Although it is best to begin these activities early in the life cycle, they may be initiated at any 

point in the process. Robust DMSMS management is a dynamic process that never ends. Once a 

program solves one issue, it should move on to the next. When a program has gone through its list of 

issues, it should start again; something will have changed. A program should repeat this process until its 

system retires. Ultimately, the DMSMS management process constitutes DMSMS risk management. 

1.5. Organization of This Document 

The five steps of the DMSMS management process constitute the core organizing principle for this 

document: 

11
SD-22 – January 2016 















Section 1 provides an overview of DMSMS as both a concept and a multidisciplinary process. 

Specifically, it describes the DMSMS scope and objective, the mechanisms that drive 

obsolescence, the importance of establishing a DMSMS management program, and an overview 

of the DMSMS management process steps. 

Section 2 discusses the link between DMSMS management and the defense acquisition system, 

with particular focus on systems engineering (SE) and life-cycle product support. This section 

provides important input to and context for the rest of the document. 

Section 3 addresses the Prepare step of DMSMS management. Specifically, it describes best 

practices for establishing a strong infrastructure—data, people, processes, management reports, 

and financial resources—for successful DMSMS management. 

Section 4 focuses on the Identify step, which encompasses DMSMS monitoring and surveillance 

throughout the life cycle and includes best practices for determining where to focus DMSMS 

management efforts. 

Section 5 discusses the Assess step of DMSMS management. It begins with a discussion of the 

monitoring and surveillance data collected; it also describes how to measure the operational 

impacts of the risks and how to prioritize them. 

Section 6 focuses on the Analyze step, which deals with analyzing alternative approaches for 

resolving DMSMS issues and identifying the preferred alternative. This section lists DMSMS 

resolution options and provides a basis for estimating their cost. It also identifies risk factors 

associated with these options. 

Section 7 addresses the Implement step, which covers the implementation of the preferred 

resolution option. It discusses potential sources of implementation funding, the roles of the DMT 

during implementation, and some considerations associated with common implementation issues. 

Appendixes A through L contain supporting detail about DMSMS activities, such as questions that need 

to be addressed for SE technical reviews and logistics assessments (LAs), examples of contract 

language related to DMSMS management, DMSMS workforce competencies and the capabilities of a 

robust DMSMS management program, DMSMS implications of counterfeit parts and lead-free electronics, 

best practices for the quality assurance (QA) of DMSMS processes, and ways to access additional 

DMSMS knowledge and organic services and capabilities. Appendix M defines abbreviations used 

throughout this document. 

Figure 3 shows the high-level interrelationships of the five DMSMS steps, the corresponding sections of 

this document, and the supporting appendixes. The figure does not show Appendix H, which contains 

reference information about all DMSMS activities. 

Figure 1. Interrelationships among the DMSMS Processes and the Document’s Components

12
SD-22 – January 2016 

2. DMSMS Management Links to the Defense Acquisition System 

This section addresses the relationship of defense acquisition system policy and guidance to DMSMS 

management policy and guidance. Considering overarching DoD policy and guidance, the DoD 

Components have created their own policies, which can be found in the DMSMS Knowledge Sharing 

Portal (DKSP) described in Appendix H. The DKSP also contains DoD Component guidance documents. 

13
SD-22 – January 2016 

2.1. DMSMS Policy 

DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,”9 has established 

DMSMS policy in its Enclosure 6 on life-cycle sustainment as follows: “Ensure identification of obsolete 

parts in specifications and develop plans for suitable replacements in accordance with P.L. 113-66, 

Section 803.”

10 The public law requires the Secretary of Defense to “implement a process for the 

expedited identification and replacement of obsolete electronic parts included in acquisition programs of 

the Department of Defense.” The following, taken verbatim from the public law, are characteristics of that 

process: 

(1) include a mechanism pursuant to which contractors, or other sources of supply, may provide to 

appropriate Department of Defense officials information that identifies— 

(A) obsolete electronic parts that are included in the specifications for an acquisition program 

of the Department of Defense; and 

(B) suitable replacements for such electronic parts; 

(2) specify timelines for the expedited review and validation of information submitted by contractors, 

or other sources of supply, pursuant to paragraph (1); 

(3) specify procedures and timelines for the rapid submission and approval of engineering change 

proposals needed to accomplish the substitution of replacement parts that have been validated 

pursuant to paragraph (2); 

(4) provide for any incentives for contractor participation in the expedited process that the Secretary 

may determine to be appropriate; and 

(5) provide that, in addition to the responsibilities under section 2337 of title 10, United States Code, 

a product support manager for a major weapon system shall work to identify obsolete electronic 

parts that are included in the specifications for an acquisition program of the Department of 

Defense and approve suitable replacements for such electronic parts.”

That policy has been amplified in DoDI 4140.01, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy,” which 

states the following:11





“DoD materiel management shall operate as a high-performing and agile supply chain responsive 

to customer requirements during peacetime and war while balancing risk and total cost. The DoD 

supply chain shall provide best-value materiel and services in support of rapid power projection 

and operational sustainment of U.S. forces as required by the National Military Strategy. Potential 

disruptions within and outside the DoD supply chain shall be identified, monitored, and assessed 

in order to mitigate risk to supply chain operations. Life-cycle management controls shall be 

applied to guard against counterfeit materiel in the DoD supply chain. Energy efficient products or 

services shall have preference in all procurements, except those products or services procured 

for combat or combat-related missions.”

“Resourcing for all elements of the DoD supply chain shall be optimized through collaboration 

between support providers and customers. DoD investment shall be sufficient throughout the life 

cycle of new or existing weapons systems, equipment, and major end items to respond to 

warfighter needs. Performance and cost evaluations of supply chain operations and inventory 

shall be conducted periodically with the objective of ensuring that assets are available for use or 

reuse in the DoD supply chain to satisfy customer requirements.”

 

9 DoD, “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” DoDI 5000.02, January 7, 2015, p. 113.

10 Public Law 113-66, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014,” December 26, 2013.

11 DoD, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy,” DoDI 4140.01, December 14, 2011. 

14
SD-22 – January 2016 

DoD Manual (DoDM) 4140.01, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Sourcing,”

implements that policy for DMSMS as follows:12

















“The Military Departments and [Defense Logistics Agency] (DLA) will: (1) Proactively take timely 

and effective actions to identify and minimize the DMSMS impact on DoD acquisition and logistics 

support efforts. (2) Develop and fund a standard DoD strategy and program to resolve problems 

created by DMSMS and to resolve those problems in a way that reduces or eliminates any 

negative impacts. (3) Proactively consider DMSMS through a system’s life cycle by anticipating 

potential DMSMS occurrences and taking appropriate logistics, acquisition, and budgeting steps 

to prevent DMSMS from adversely affecting readiness or total ownership cost.”

“The Military Departments and DLA will designate a focal point to plan and coordinate actions to 

minimize the impact of DMSMS.”

“When items are difficult to obtain because they are obsolete, out-of-production, or for other 

reasons, weapon system program managers and materiel managers will take measures to 

prevent potential counterfeit materiel or unauthorized product substitution items from entering the 

supply system.”

“Commanders of activities with responsibility for design control, acquisition, and management of 

any centrally managed item used within weapon systems or equipment will implement the 

DMSMS program by establishing internal procedures.”

“When an item is identified as DMSMS, the managing Military Department or DLA [will implement] 

the most cost effective solution consistent with mission requirements.”

“The Military Departments and DLA will send to the cognizant materiel manager the information 

that was originally obtained from industrial sources about an actual or prospective announcement 

of a manufacturer’s intent to stop production. ... The cognizant materiel manager will notify the 

[Government-Industry Data Exchange Program] to establish a DMSMS case.”

“The Military Departments and DLA will ensure that the [Inventory Control Point] maintains postaction surveillance throughout the life of DMSMS items in the DoD supply system.”

“DLA or the managing Military Department as well as security assistance customers who use the 

specific items will respond to requests for requirements information needed to decide the best 

course of action for ensuring continued supply of DMSMS items.”

2.2. DMSMS Guidance for the Program Manager 

DoD Directive (DoDD) 5000.01, “The Defense Acquisition System,” contains principles, policies, and 

procedures for managing all acquisition programs. One such policy establishes the importance of cost 

and affordability over the life cycle of a DoD system: 

All participants in the acquisition system shall recognize the reality of fiscal constraints. They shall view 

cost as an independent variable, and the DoD Components shall plan programs based on realistic 

projections of the dollars and manpower likely to be available in future years. To the greatest extent 

possible, the MDAs [Milestone Decision Authorities] shall identify the total costs of ownership, and at a 

minimum, the major drivers of total ownership costs. The user shall address affordability in establishing 

capability needs.13

Figure 4 depicts the acquisition life cycle. 

 

12 DoD, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Sourcing,” DoDM 4140.01, 

Vol. 3, February 10, 2014, pp. 24–47. 

13 DoD, “The Defense Acquisition System,” DoDD 5000.01, May 2003 (certified current as of 

November 2007), p. 5. 

15
SD-22 – January 2016 

Figure 2. Acquisition Life Cycle 







 

Adapted from DoDI 5000.02, January 7, 2015, p. 5. 

SE is the technical management approach used to ensure the consideration of affordability throughout 

the life cycle. According to DoDD 5000.01, 

acquisition programs shall be managed through the application of a systems engineering approach that 

optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs. A modular, open-systems 

approach shall be employed, where feasible.14

DoDD 5000.01 also provides the PM with the responsibility and authority to ensure that cost and 

affordability are considered throughout the life cycle. This is termed total life-cycle systems management: 

The PM shall be the single point of accountability for accomplishing program objectives for total life-cycle 

systems management, including sustainment. The PM shall apply human systems integration to optimize 

total system performance (hardware, software, and human), operational effectiveness, and suitability, 

survivability, safety, and affordability. PMs shall consider supportability, life-cycle costs, performance, and 

schedule comparable in making program decisions. Planning for Operation and Support and the 

estimation of total ownership costs shall begin as early as possible. Supportability, a key component of 

performance, shall be considered throughout the system life cycle.15

The role of the PM changes over the life cycle of a system. DMSMS management assists the PM in 

fulfilling his or her responsibilities in each phase of the defense acquisition system. Before the 

establishment of initial operational capability (IOC), the PM is responsible for the design, development, 

and production of the system, with two primary goals: meet performance requirements and minimize lifecycle costs. Once the system is fielded, the PM is responsible for affordably supporting the system as it is 

used for both training and operations. 

Robust DMSMS management is important to these PM responsibilities, because it accomplishes the 

following: 

Establishes criteria for evaluating design alternatives from a DMSMS management perspective 

Helps ensure the availability of all items and material required to design, produce, or repair the 

system or equipment 

Controls and possibly reduces total ownership cost 

14 Ibid., p. 9. 

15 Ibid., p. 10. 

16
SD-22 – January 2016 









Provides for risk mitigation as it applies to DMSMS issues 

Identifies potential DMSMS issues early enough to allow all applicable resolution options to be 

considered 

Evaluates all of the applicable approaches to resolve DMSMS issues 

Collects metrics to monitor program effectiveness. 

The importance of DMSMS management to the PM for ensuring cost and affordability throughout the 

system life cycle has also been highlighted by the Defense Acquisition University (DAU): “Obsolescence 

and DMSMS will eat your lunch (along with breakfast and dinner if you’re not careful).”16

The PM should establish an aggressive set of DMSMS management strategic underpinnings and develop 

and adopt a plan to execute those strategic underpinnings. This will help ensure that design, product 

support, modifications, and service life extensions will be effective from a supportability perspective. 

Continuous modernization and technology insertion/refreshment are important enablers. In fact, DMSMS 

management should guide the program’s broader plans. DMSMS health assessments—which integrate 

estimated obsolescence dates, usage rates, items due and stocks on hand, to highlight when an item or 

assembly will no longer be supportable—should guide the program’s overall technology management 

strategy, plan, and roadmaps to synchronize efforts to address technology trends and requirement-driven 

product upgrades. 

The Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) establishes a framework for the PM to carry out cost- and 

affordability-related functions, as shown in Figure 5.17

Figure 3. Framework for Ensuring Affordable System Operational Effectiveness 

 

16 Bill Kobren, “10 Things Great Program Managers Know About Product Support,” Defense AT&L, 

November–December 2011. 

17 See https://dag.dau.mil/Pages/Default.aspx, accessed February 11, 2014. 

17
SD-22 – January 2016 

 

Source: Defense Acquisition Guidebook. 

According to the DAG, affordable system operational effectiveness is achieved by designing for the 

optimal balance between performance (technical and supportability), total ownership cost, schedule, and 

process efficiency that enables production, operation, and sustainment. The concept of affordable system 

operational effectiveness is important, because it is what the warfighter sees in terms of how well the 

system performs its missions over a sustained period, as well as how well it supports a surge, given the 

operating budget. In this concept, the emphasis is not only on the system’s ability to execute its mission 

or its reliability and maintainability, but also on the cost-effective responsiveness of the supply chain. 

The framework should not be viewed as static. Initially, the design is a driver of the product support 

strategy. However, one of the tenets of evolutionary acquisition is incremental block development. Future 

increments of design are influenced by new technical performance requirements, the current degree of 

supportability, the current product support concept, and affordability. Consequently, life-cycle cost and 

process efficiency affect supportability in future increments of the system. 

The following two subsections expand upon the framework’s two major elements: design effectiveness 

and process efficiency. 

2.3. Design Effectiveness and DMSMS 

The DAG describes how design effectiveness reflects the key design features of technical performance 

and supportability.18 These characteristics should be designed into the system and with full knowledge of 

the expected system missions within the context of the proposed system operational, maintenance, and 

support concepts. To be effective, technical performance and supportability objectives should be defined 

in explicit, quantitative, and testable terms. This is important to facilitate tradeoffs, as well as to support 

18 Supportability encompasses the extent to which design characteristics and logistics resources 

enable the attainment of availability goals. 

18
SD-22 – January 2016 

the selection and assessment of the product and process technologies needed to achieve those 

objectives. 

2.3.1. DMSMS as a Consideration in Design 

Design effectiveness is an overarching outcome of SE. This is where the product support manager (PSM) 

provides advice about design tradeoffs. Section 4.3.18 of the DAG, “Systems Engineering Design 

Considerations,” discusses how design is a complex task that must balance a large number of 

performance, support, safety, environmental, security, regulatory, and other requirements and 

constraints. Because a feasible solution can rarely satisfy all of these things in a cost-effective way, the 

SE process guides design tradeoffs, including the consideration of DMSMS-related interests and 

concerns, to develop a balanced solution for all stakeholders. This section provides guidelines regarding 

the DMSMS trade space for initial design and subsequent redesign phases resulting from DMSMS 

considerations. 

DMSMS is one among many product support design considerations in the DAG. Design decisions made 

early in a program—for example, during the materiel solution analysis, technology maturation and risk 

reduction, and engineering and manufacturing development phases—have a substantial impact on 

operations and support costs later in the program. As shown in Figure 6, a high percentage of the lifecycle costs of a program are locked in based on early design decisions. 

Figure 4. Relationship between a Program’s Expended Life-Cycle Cost and Locked-In Cost 

Source: W.J. Larson and L.K. Pranke, Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill, 1999). 

During the initial design process, performance, supportability, logistics, cost, and other considerations all 

have to be balanced and trades made to produce the optimal design. For a redesign effort, specifications 

and interfaces already exist, which may constrain the ability to determine an optimal design. DMSMS is 

one of the many considerations informing design and redesign decisions. 

A DMSMS review of system or product designs provides the opportunity to design out items that are high 

risk for various reasons. For example, if they are near their end of life (EOL), replacing them would be 

difficult or complex, and requalifying the system after replacing the items would be costly. As a best 

practice, program leadership should actively set the tone for the importance of DMSMS even as early as 

the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) by setting design goals that consider availability, supportability, 

producibility, reliability, and maintainability over the fielded lifetime of the product or system. These 

considerations should be built into the checklist for discussions with the chief engineer and program 

manager leading up to each review milestone. For example, the program might challenge its design 

19
SD-22 – January 2016 

engineers to develop a design that will endure until year X, where “X” is the year in which either the next 

production block or technology insertion is scheduled. Considering DMSMS during design not only will 

help to avoid the incorporation of obsolete or soon-to-be obsolete items, but will also enable a program to 

more easily implement or integrate resolutions to and mitigate the impact of any DMSMS issues that do 

emerge during each phase of a program. DMSMS can have such a substantial cost impact to program 

execution that failure to track and address these issues can have serious impact to cost, schedule, and 

even program viability. 

Below are several design concepts that designers and systems engineers should consider to minimize 

DMSMS risk throughout the life cycle of a system or product: 





Technology and item selection. New technologies do not capture 100 percent of the market all at 

once; there is a period of time when both the new technology and the one it replaces are in use. 

However, the design should not include anything that is near the end of its functional life. A 

technology roadmap that anticipates the life spans of technologies and synchronizes both 

technology refreshment and insertion is useful when designing systems, especially electronic 

systems. There are, however, tradeoffs associated with selecting new technologies. New 

technologies can be profoundly more effective at some important defense performance 

parameter, and thereby enable major changes in defense capability. So it is desirable to be able 

to insert such new technologies. However, there is often a learning phase associated with a new 

technology in which issues are discovered.19 Consequently, choosing the appropriate technology 

insertion timing where leading capability exists but where early phase problems have been 

corrected is essential. When feasible to do so, it is also a best practice to avoid the selection of 

sole-source items. 

Parts management. Parts management is a design strategy for standardization and reuse that 

can enhance the reliability of the system and mitigate obsolescence due to DMSMS.20 An up-front 

assessment of the risk of obsolescence should influence parts selection during the design 

process. Parts selection encompasses both the selection of new parts and the reuse of parts from 

previous designs. The selection of new parts might seek to standardize the use of parts to the 

greatest extent possible and minimize the use of custom parts through the recommendation of 

alternatives. For example, field-programmable gate arrays instead of application-specific 

integrated circuits (ASICs) may provide the advantage of being able to purchase much larger 

quantities of a part type, and thereby enjoy volume discounts, and improved factory support, and 

reduced development cycle time and cost. This is a tradeoff, however, with lower power and 

higher performance for an ASIC designed specifically for a task where the volume or performance 

justifies the ASIC development. If unique, highly specialized parts are used to meet performance 

requirements, DMSMS issues during operations and support will be more prevalent. The risk 

assessment should also consider material selections, economic and regulatory trends, unique 

manufacturing processes, packaging schemes, and so on. Before including a part on a preferred 

parts list, the identified risks should be assessed and managed in order to make the BOM stable 

and sustainable.21 As the design stabilizes, it should minimize the number of OEM or original 

component manufacturer (OCM) parts necessary for production. When nonpreferred parts are 

used, their designs should be captured in the proper transportable computer-aided design 

 

19 For example: In electronic components these issues are often called errata. In specialized 

manufacturing, there can be issues with a manufacturing process that must be resolved before the 

product is sufficiently reliable for a specific application. 

20 Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Section 4.3.18.21, “Standardization,” 

https://dag.dau.mil/Pages/Default.aspx, accessed February 11, 2014. For more information on parts 

management, see Defense Standardization Program Office, SD-19, Parts Management, September 

2009, and MIL-STD-3018, “Department of Defense Standard Practice: Parts Management,” October 27, 

2011. 

21 A bill of materials is a list of the OEM-assigned part numbers. 

20
SD-22 – January 2016 

models.22 A somewhat higher level of parts management is standardized module development. 

For example, a common design can be reused over and over for many purposes, perhaps with 

minor variation in software or minor variation in connected sensors and actuators to enable use in 

many different applications. Similarly, this same platform can be repackaged in a different shape 

but otherwise the same design. The net result of standardized module design is, as above, higher 

volume of product, better factory support from suppliers, and more rapid increase of product 

reliability and producibility. In the context of DMSMS, the higher-volume consumption of 

components enables a closer connectivity with suppliers to work DMSMS sourceability issues. 

Open systems architecture–hardware. An open systems architecture employs technologyindependent modular design tenets, uses widely supported and consensus-based standards for 

its key interfaces, and is subject to validation and verification, including test and evaluation (T&E), 

to ensure that key interfaces meet open standards. An open systems architecture thereby takes 

equipment roadmaps and technology insertion plans into account. Also, compared with designspecific approaches, it enables readily available alternative items to be used more easily in place 

of obsolete items, as long as the substitutes have the same form/fit/function (F3) and interface as 

the ones they replace. Test interfaces must also be considered. An open systems architecture 

reduces DMSMS costs, because it avoids expensive redesign by facilitating the insertion of 

advanced technologies.23 Often, it also enables multi-vendor competition, which will minimize the 

likelihood of future DMSMS issues. 

Open systems architecture–software. An open and modular design enables the development of 

“plug-and-play” hardware and software that are interchangeable through industry-standard 

interface modules. To minimize DMSMS impacts, the software architecture of a system should be 

designed to take growth, evolving standards, and interfaces into consideration.24 This provides for 

change while minimizing the impact on existing system functions. In addition, the design should 

allow for partitioning of the software into appropriate units that can be tested in isolation and 

should avoid making software dependent on the hardware through the appropriate isolation of 

drivers. Plug-and-play interfaces are desirable when appropriate. Low coupling (interdependent 

relationships) within a system allows a system to rely on information sharing to control, manage, 

and execute functions. When designing custom software and selecting COTS software, a 

program will also want to carefully select interface standards and protocols that are the most 

stable and have the broadest support, as these will have greater staying power within industry. A 

program should also seek to minimize the number of different interface standards and protocols 

applied across the weapons system, because this will simplify the design configuration and 

configuration management issues. The focus of software design can then be to meet the driver 

interfaces, rather than different, specific hardware items. Transportability of models that capture 

critical elements of the design is a consideration. The modules of an open system should be 

discrete, scalable, and reusable with low connectivity to the relationship between internal 

elements of different modules, simplifying and decreasing the number of interfaces required. 

Having high cohesion among module functions also enables multitasking and use of identical 

modules throughout the system. Significant complexities may be associated with using open 

systems architecture principles for a new software design being incorporated into an existing 

asynchronous system. One approach to software design is object-oriented design, which can 





 

22 A very useful method of describing many firmware or logic hardware design is through a VHSIC 

Hardware Description Language (VHDL). A VHDL (assuming a satisfactory level of specificity) is easily 

ported from one generation to the next generation of technology. Life-cycle costs may be reduced 

significantly through the proper use of VHDL design representation. When dealing with microcircuits, the 

most common HDL is VHDL. 

23 The ability to use an open systems architecture design approach for a legacy system is limited if 

not anticipated in the initial design. 

24 Software is the primary focus of integration for the development of open, scalable, and adaptable 

systems. 

21
SD-22 – January 2016 

increase portability and reusability of software. Finally, DMSMS issues will often require an 

update of standards-based protocols (such as Internet protocols). Because standards-based 

protocols are revised relatively often due to cyber defense issues, it is essential to recognize that 

the operating system and protocol stack are likely to be revised frequently and therefore any 

system should provide the required mechanisms for assured updates. 

Use of COTS assemblies. COTS assemblies offer opportunities for reduced development time, 

faster insertion of new technology, lower procurement costs, and potentially, lower life-cycle 

costs, due to a more robust industrial base. Consequently, DoD systems increasingly comprise 

COTS assemblies and software. Unfortunately, the use of COTS assemblies also presents some 

challenges. The DoD community has little influence over the far shorter life cycle of commercial 

products. Consequently, information on the future availability of COTS assemblies is hard to 

obtain or track. Changes during the system life cycle may not be documented, increasing the 

likelihood of CM and DMSMS issues. In addition, depending upon the system and program 

management practices, requalification costs associated with replacing COTS assemblies may be 

significant. For that reason, the initial cost savings from the use of COTS assemblies may be 

offset by increased costs later in the life cycle when those assemblies have become obsolete or 

are replaced by a later-generation design. In short, it may or may not be appropriate to include 

COTS assemblies in critical paths or functions of a system. Before including a COTS assembly in 

a design, the designer or PM should assess the risk and suitability (which should include 

developing a technology roadmap and refreshment strategy).25 A program should avoid 

modification of COTS assemblies or software without careful consideration of the implications and 

alternatives. For example, modification could make the assembly or software nonstandard and 

incompatible with any standard updates to correct for deficiencies or errata, to add a feature, or to 

otherwise optimize performance. A PM would then be faced with choosing between the 

immediate costs of further revising the nonstandard assembly or software (to incorporate the 

update) or future high support costs and the inevitable obsolescence. 



In addition to design concepts, the design tools themselves can impact future DMSMS issues. Modern 

defense systems are designed, built, and manufactured with extremely capable 

computer-aided design tools. These tools enable exhaustive checking of a design at each design phase. 

Whether electrical design, software design, firmware design, mechanical design, system design, system 

validation, production, or life-cycle support, modern tools will be valuable in reducing the cycle time and 

eliminating many common types of errors. Some of these tools interface with DMSMS resources to 

provide alerts regarding the latest issues with components or subsystems or with current practices. Some 

are also able to check rules and checklists for best practices and identify alternate items that may be in 

an earlier stage of their life cycle. All are able to provide appropriate design documentation.

DMSMS is one of numerous priorities and requirements competing for the attention of the PM. Part of the 

DMSMS community’s role is to educate PMs on the importance of identifying and addressing 

obsolescence issues as early in a program as possible, often by addressing downstream implications. 

The DMSMS community should not be thought of as a single-issue community on its own. Instead, 

DMSMS should be approached as an integral part of reliability, maintainability, availability, and 

supportability. Indeed, the DMSMS community might be able to build momentum and weight behind its 

recommendations by leveraging the interaction that other communities have with the PMs and chief 

engineers. Ultimately, the bottom line is that even if the DMT is unable to influence the design in a 

manner that eliminates “designing in” an item that is or has the potential to soon be obsolete, it will have 

at least identified DMSMS risks to continue to monitor for potential future mitigating actions. 

 

25 Electronic Industries Alliance, “Standard for Preparing a COTS Assembly Management Plan,” EIA933, 2011. This standard was originally issued by the Electronics Industries Alliance, which dissolved in 

February 2011 and no longer exists. The standard now belongs to SAE International, which is in the 

process of updating this 

document. 

22
SD-22 – January 2016 

The establishment and conduct of a DMT can serve as another point of leverage for the ongoing 

identification and mitigation of DMSMS issues throughout a program. Such a team would include relevant 

stakeholders, representing both government and contractors, and ensure regular, scheduled 

communication to discuss and resolve obsolescence as it pertains to the design of the system for the 

program in question. 

2.3.2. DMSMS Considerations in Systems Engineering Technical Reviews 

 Given the long life cycles of defense systems, the exclusion of obsolete items from the designs of 

those systems is an obvious best practice. Program leadership should ensure that a DMT has the 

opportunity, throughout the program life cycle, to review all designs and redesigns for 

obsolescence. Even in the early stage of a program and before BOMs are available, the DMT can 

examine a preliminary parts list to identify whether any important parts being considered are 

obsolete or near obsolete. Doing so offers a program the opportunity to lower the cost of 

redesigns, identify items that should be designed out prior to causing a detrimental impact, and 

also provide guidance to the program on what may need to be preserved, in terms of technical 

data, tooling, and insurance spares in order to hedge against future obsolescence. Even when 

the use of obsolete items cannot be prevented, having properly vetted a system’s design can 

enable a program to prepare a mitigation strategy to address the known obsolescence at a lower 

cost. A program should incorporate the necessary language into contracts to ensure that the 

program is able to review all designs and redesigns in relation to SE technical reviews, which are 

used throughout the life cycle as a means for the program office to assess how to technically 

proceed with the program. Figure 7 illustrates how some of the technical reviews relate to the life 

cycle. 

23
SD-22 – January 2016 

Figure 5. Timing of Systems Engineering Technical Reviews 

Source: Adapted from the Defense Acquisition Guidebook. 

Notes: ASR = Alternative Systems Review, CDR = Critical Design Review, PDR = Preliminary Design Review, PRR = 

Production Readiness Review, SFR = System Functional Review, and SRR = Systems Requirements Review. 

Table 1 summarizes specific issues that may be of interest from a DMSMS management perspective at 

the time of each technical review. 

Table 1. Summary of Principal Systems Engineering Technical Reviews 

Phase 

Review 

type 

Specific issues of interest 

from DMSMS perspective 

Materiel Solution 

Analysis 

ASR DMSMS management planning has been initiated and is focused on the most 

likely preferred systems concepts. DMSMS impacts may be a consideration 

when performing an analysis of alternatives (AoA) to ensure that the preferred 

system is cost-effective, affordable, operationally effective, and suitable and can 

be developed to provide a timely solution to a need at an acceptable level of 

risk. 

Technology 

Maturation and 

Risk Reduction 

SRR The program has begun to develop its DMSMS management strategy and plan, 

which begins to identify the roles and responsibilities of the government, 

prime/subcontractor, and third-party vendors. Some members of the DMT and 

contracting strategies have been identified. Technology development contracts 

require the delivery of data necessary for DMSMS management and define the 

contractor roles and responsibilities. 

SFR The DMP has been developed and a partial DMT has been formed. The 

development of DMSMS processes and metrics is underway. 

PDR The DMP, including the documentation of all operational processes, has been 

formally approved by program leadership. Monitoring and surveillance for 

DMSMS issues, using predictive tools and market surveys, is being conducted 

for notional or preliminary parts lists/BOMs. Impact assessment (using 

estimated reliability data), resolution determination, and resolution 

implementation have begun. Technology roadmaps and refreshment strategies 

are being factored into DMSMS management processes. 

24
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 1. Summary of Principal Systems Engineering Technical Reviews 

Phase 

Review 

type 

Specific issues of interest 

from DMSMS perspective 

Engineering and 

Manufacturing 

Development 

CDR Monitoring and surveillance for DMSMS issues, using predictive tools and 

market surveys, are being conducted for the build baseline/final design, 

indentured BOM. Impact assessment (using estimated reliability data), 

resolution determination, and resolution implementation are taking place. 

Technology roadmaps and refreshment strategies are being factored into 

DMSMS processes. Case management and the capture of metrics are taking 

place. Engineering and manufacturing development contracts require the 

delivery of data necessary for DMSMS management and define the contractor 

roles and responsibilities. 

PRR Monitoring and surveillance for DMSMS issues, using predictive tools and 

market surveys, are being conducted. Impact assessment (using estimated 

reliability data), resolution determination, and resolution implementation are 

taking place. Technology roadmaps and refreshment strategies are being 

factored into DMSMS processes. Case management and the capture of metrics 

are taking place. 

The SE community has developed checklists for each of the technical reviews. These checklists should 

be used during the reviews as the primary guide for assessing risk. DMSMS management-related issues 

also are suitable issues to be considered during all technical reviews. 

Appendix D identifies a number of specific DMSMS management-related questions for use in support of 

technical reviews. The DMSMS management-related questions offered in that appendix have been 

designed for use by the DMSMS community to inform DMSMS-related discussions before the technical 

reviews and to highlight DMSMS issues to be addressed during the reviews. DMSMS managementrelated questions are already incorporated into the SE checklists for technical reviews; however, an effort 

has been made to expand upon them systematically for DMSMS practitioners. 

The program should review and oversee the DMSMS management efforts of its prime contractor and 

ensure that all obsolescence issues are reviewed and resolved prior to the decision to proceed to the next 

phase in the life cycle, particularly before moving into production. 

2.4. Process Efficiency and DMSMS 

The DAG defines process efficiency as an indicator of how well the system can be produced, operated, 

serviced (including fueling), and maintained. It also indicates the degree to which the logistics processes 

(including the supply chain), infrastructure, and footprint have been balanced to provide an agile, 

deployable, and operationally effective system. Achieving process efficiency requires early and continuing 

emphasis on the various logistics support processes, along with other design considerations. An 

emphasis on process efficiency is important, because processes present opportunities for improving 

operational effectiveness—via Lean Six Sigma, supply chain optimization, and other continuous process 

improvement techniques—even after the design-in window has passed. Optimization and continuous 

process improvement techniques can be applied through, for example, supply chain management, 

resource demand forecasting, training, maintenance procedures, calibration procedures, packaging, 

handling, and transportation and warehousing processes. 

The product support package and some of its key functions, as derived from the product support strategy, 

contribute to process efficiency. The product support package is formulated to provide supportability 

25
SD-22 – January 2016 

during the O&S phase of the acquisition life cycle. These are key areas for the PSM to contribute to 

supportability.26

2.4.1. Acquisition Strategy 

The technology maturation and risk reduction phase of acquisition is focused on reducing technology risk 

associated with the set of technologies to be integrated into a full system. Activities in this phase are 

guided by a Technology Development Strategy (TDS). The TDS is a precursor to the Acquisition Strategy 

(AS) in that it provides overall cost, schedule, and performance goals for the program. At program 

initiation, the AS replaces the TDS. 

According to the DAG, program strategies include the TDS and the AS. They optimize the time and cost 

required to satisfy approved capability needs and should be updated for all major decision points. 

Consequently, the combination of the TDS and the AS is the overarching program management plan. 

DMSMS management concepts are included in these documents in the section dealing with industrial 

capability and manufacturing readiness. The DMSMS management discussion should address 

technology obsolescence, replacement of limited-life items, and regeneration options for unique 

manufacturing processes.27

2.4.2. Product Support Strategy

The product support strategy translates warfighter requirements into performance outcomes. It is defined 

and implemented through a 12-step process, 28 which must be updated regularly throughout the life cycle. 

Three of these steps, those with expanded explanations in the following list, have been linked with 

DMSMS management: 

















Integrate warfighter requirements and support. 

Form the product support management IPT. 

Baseline the system. This step includes collecting data needed to assess and analyze support 

decisions. Strategically planning for technology refreshment is an important contributor to the 

design for support, and DMSMS management is recognized as one of several drivers of 

technology refreshment. The product support strategy itself affects the implementation of DMSMS 

management both within the program office and with contractors. 

Identify or refine performance outcomes. 

Conduct a business case analysis (BCA). This step involves using a structured method to identify 

and compare alternative product support solutions. Obsolescence management is part of the 

BCA scope. A DoD guidebook recommends the use of DMSMS analytical tools.29

Analyze the product support value. This step consists of assessing the results of the BCA to 

identify the optimal best-value product support solution. DMSMS management should be 

considered as part of best-value analysis to optimize life-cycle cost. 

Determine support methods. 

Designate product support integrators. 

 

26 In addition to the product support references cited in this section, see the following: 10 U.S.C. § 

2337, “Life Cycle Management and Product Support”; DAU Life Cycle Logistics Community of Practice, 

https://acc.dau.mil/log; DAU Performance Based Logistics Community of Practice, https://acc.dau.mil/pbl; 

DAU Product Support Key References, https://acc.dau.mil/productsupport; and DoD, PBL Guidebook: A 

Guide to Developing Performance-Based Arrangements, 2014. 

27 Sample TDS and AS outlines are in “Document Streamlining—Program Strategies and Systems 

Engineering Plan” (April 2011 memorandum from the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense). 

28 DoD, Product Support Manager Guidebook, 2011. 

29 DoD, Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook, 2011. 

26
SD-22 – January 2016 









Identify product support providers. 

Identify or refine financial enablers. 

Establish or refine product support agreements. 

Implement and assess. 

2.4.3. Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan 

The Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) provides for the execution of the product support package.30

DMSMS management is identified as a notional entry in an LCSP table of regulatory/statutory 

requirements that influence sustainment performance. In addition, the LCSP is required to include a 

detailed, integrated life-cycle system schedule that contains major logistics sustainment events including 

dependencies on key sustainment planning documents. The DMP is identified as one of the key 

sustainment planning documents. 

LCSP product support functions are derived primarily from the last five product support strategy steps 

listed above. Twelve integrated product support elements embody the tasks associated with the product 

support functions. The 12 elements, listed below, include 6 (those with expanded descriptions) that are 

linked with DMSMS management:31















Product support management. This element deals with planning and managing cost and 

performance across the product support value chain. The product support strategy is not static. It 

evolves as the system ages, in part because DMSMS issues affect the PSM’s ability to provide 

support, including the cost of that support. Therefore, the product support strategy needs to be 

reassessed periodically. The changes resulting from this reassessment are reflected in changes 

to the post-production support plan and the resources required for plan execution. 

Design interface. This element deals with participation in the SE process to ensure the design 

facilitates supportability. DMSMS issues, technology refreshment, and modifications and 

upgrades are called out as long-term considerations affecting design. DMSMS management 

presents an important opportunity to influence design. 

Sustaining engineering. This element deals with the continued operation and maintenance of a 

system with managed risk. It recognizes that DMSMS problems are a root cause of in-service 

problems and that modernization should anticipate DMSMS issues. Cautions are raised with the 

use of COTS assemblies and the risk of underestimating the number of or potential for DMSMS 

problems. The guidance also links to DMSMS management-related reference material, including 

this document. 

Supply support. This element deals with the identification, planning for, resourcing, and 

implementation of all management actions to acquire repair items, spares, and all classes of 

supply to ensure that equipment is ready when needed. Over time, any product support strategy 

based on the production supply chain will need to shift to a sustainment supply chain. 

Furthermore, sustainment supply chains will have to be adjusted if DMSMS concerns exist. 

Maintenance planning and management. 

Packaging, handling, storage, and transportation. 

Technical data. This element deals with the identification, planning, resourcing, and 

implementation of management actions to develop and acquire information to operate and 

maintain the system. The guidance for this element recognizes that because of DMSMS 

 

30 See Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan Sample Outline, Version 1.0, August 10, 2010, promulgated by 

the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Memorandum, “Document Streamlining—Life-Cycle 

Sustainment Plan (LCSP),” September 2011.

31 DoD, Integrated Product Support (IPS) Element Guidebook, 2011, and DoD, Product Support 

Manager Guidebook, 2011. 

27
SD-22 – January 2016 

management and other concerns, the government may need detailed technical data for 

remanufacturing, reprocurement, or sustaining engineering. The requirement for such technical 

data should be established during the technology maturation and risk reduction phase of 

acquisition. Ultimately, any technical data requirement should be clearly expressed in the 

appropriate contracts as early as possible and flowed down the supply chain. 

Support equipment. This element deals with the identification, planning, resourcing, and 

implementation of management actions to acquire and support the equipment required to sustain 

the operation and maintenance of the system. DMSMS management is identified as a 

consideration in the sustainment of support equipment. 

Training and training support. 

Manpower and personnel. 

Facilities and infrastructure. 

Computer resources. 











2.4.4. DMSMS Considerations in Logistics Assessments 

The implementation of independent LAs during weapon system development, production, and post-IOC 

acquisition phases was recommended by the DoD Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Product Support 

Assessment to improve the effectiveness of product support.32 An LA is an analysis of a program’s 

supportability planning, which serves as an effective and valid assessment of the program office’s product 

support strategy, as well as an assessment of how this strategy leads to successfully operating a system 

at an affordable cost.... Conducting the LA early in the program phase where the design can be 

influenced, and reassessing the planning at each milestone and periodically thereafter as the design 

matures, is critical to fielding a sustainable system.33

The LAs focus on the product support strategy and how that strategy leads to successful and affordable 

system operations. Because DMSMS issues have a bearing on the sustainment of a system, DMSMS 

should be considered within LAs. Table 2 summarizes the focus of the pre- and post-IOC LAs. 

Table 2. Summary of Logistics Assessments 

Assessment type Specific issues of interest from DMSMS perspective 

Pre-IOC (at 

Milestone B, 

Milestone C, and 

prior to full-rate 

production decision) 

Monitoring and surveillance for DMSMS issues, using predictive tools and market 

surveys, are being conducted to identify immediate and near-term obsolescence 

issues associated with the system BOM. Impact assessment, resolution 

determination, and resolution implementation are taking place. Technology roadmaps 

and refreshment strategies are being factored into DMSMS processes. Case 

management and the capture of metrics are taking place. 

Post-IOC (at least 

every 5 years) 

Monitoring and surveillance for DMSMS issues, using predictive tools and market 

surveys, are being conducted to identify immediate and near-term obsolescence 

issues associated with the system BOM. Impact assessment (using actual reliability 

data and inventory dispositions), resolution determination, and resolution 

implementation are taking place. Technology roadmaps and refreshment strategies 

are being factored into DMSMS processes and reviewed for potential updates and 

adjustments. Case management and the capture of metrics are taking place. 

Appendix E identifies a number of specific DMSMS management-related questions for use in support of 

LAs. As was the case for SE technical reviews, the DMSMS management-related questions offered in the 

 

32 DoD, Logistics Assessment Guidebook, July 2011, p. 2. 

33 Ibid., p. 6. 

28
SD-22 – January 2016 

appendix have been designed for use by the DMSMS community to inform DMSMS discussion before the 

LAs and to highlight DMSMS issues to be addressed during the LAs. DMSMS management-related 

questions are already incorporated into the checklists for assessments; however, an effort has been 

made to systematically expand upon them. 

2.5. Technology and Supply Chain Management 

Technology and supply chain management are important elements of the defense acquisition system. A 

strategic understanding of the supplier base enables an assessment of planned technology development 

on competitiveness and the viability of essential industrial and technological capabilities. Such an 

understanding provides a picture of the health of the industrial base and its ability to develop, produce, 

maintain, and support the system and, thereby, may serve as an early warning of potential DMSMS 

issues. 

From a DMSMS perspective, technology management is one of the most important aspects of supply 

chain management throughout the life cycle. Beyond the technology maturation and risk reduction phase, 

this approach is also referred to as modernization through spares, continuous modernization, or 

technology insertion or refreshment. Effective technology management enables a design AS and lifecycle sustainment strategy that minimizes the cost of resolving future obsolescence issues while 

incorporating state-of-the-art technologies to increase reliability, lower sustainment requirement costs, 

and increase warfighting capability to meet evolving requirements throughout an indefinite service life. 

Robust DMSMS management by itself will lower the costs associated with obsolescence issues. 

However, even in the best of programs, DMSMS resolutions are often suboptimal. Life-of-need 

procurements are problematic because of limited contractual horizons and uncertainties in estimating the 

total requirement over the remainder of the life cycle. Finding or qualifying alternative items may work for 

a time, but such approaches rarely take advantage of new technologies and capabilities. Unplanned 

redesigns are costly. Therefore, incorporating a technology management strategy, influenced by DMSMS 

health assessments, into design, acquisition, and sustainment activities is a best practice to further 

reduce DMSMS cost and readiness impacts throughout the life cycle. Potential seamless upgrade paths 

for technologies and items should provide a timetable for replacing items even if they are not obsolete. 

Determining when to upgrade requires the consideration of cost tradeoffs. From a single item perspective, 

the cost of the upgrade at a specified time can be compared to the cost of the upgrade at a later time plus 

the cost of mitigating the DMSMS issues until that later upgrade date. Such cost comparisons become 

increasingly complicated when multiple items are involved. Changes in capability will also affect the 

decision regarding whether to upgrade at a given point in time. 

Effective technology management begins with a strategic understanding of the market and its trends. 

Market research entails collecting information about existing and emerging technologies, products, 

manufacturers, and suppliers. It has two components: 





Market surveillance—a continuous canvassing of the commercial market to identify existing and 

future technologies, vendors’ products, and market trends that can potentially meet existing and 

emergent requirements from a strategic perspective. Market surveillance methods include 

searching the Internet, attending trade shows, reading technology publications, hiring consultants, 

issuing requests for information from prospective manufacturers and suppliers, visiting 

manufacturer/supplier facilities, and viewing product demonstrations. 

Market investigation—a focused process of identifying and determining if specific technology 

products can meet particular functional requirements. Market investigation also includes system 

obsolescence profiling to plan for the continued support or replacement of soon-to-be obsolete 

products. This product-level information and the associated budget requirements form the basis 

for sustaining the operation or functionality of a system. Market investigation methods can include 

beta testing; prototyping; testing for compliance, conformance, and compatibility; and querying of 

manufacturers and suppliers about product obsolescence status. 

Market research occurs in all of a system’s life-cycle phases, allowing the acquiring activity to do the 

following: 

 Anticipate obsolescence situations due to rapid and asynchronous product changes. 

29
SD-22 – January 2016 









Plan and budget using a broader range of product obsolescence management options. 

Maintain insight into technology trends, as well as internal product changes by the manufacturer, 

and test the effects of those changes on the system. 

Assess the quality of a manufacturer and the impact on a system of a product’s change, including 

its suitability for the user, information security characteristics, and supportability. 

Determine the manufacturer’s support period and inventories for a particular product.

Ignoring market research increases the likelihood of poor product and technology selections, as well as 

an inability to effectively predict and mitigate obsolescence impacts, leading to out-of-cycle redesigns. 

This can negatively impact program performance, schedule, and cost. 

The combination of the results of market research and an understanding of current and future mission 

needs enables a program to develop a technology roadmap. Technology roadmaps identify alternative 

technology paths for meeting performance targets.34 The DMSMS community of stakeholders is not 

responsible for developing and maintaining a program’s technology roadmaps. However, technology 

roadmaps that account for forecasted obsolescence have the potential to reduce DMSMS costs. For this 

reason, the DMT should inform its program’s technology road-mapping efforts based on the results of 

monitoring activities. 

A program’s technology roadmap provides a basis for managing one or both of the following types of 

technology-related change: 





Technology refreshment. Technology refreshment has been characterized by “the periodic 

replacement of COTS items ... to assure continued supportability of that system through an 

indefinite service life. Technology Refreshes can be strategically applied to prevent the 

occurrence of DMSMS issues preemptively or to minimize them significantly.”35 Within DoD, the 

limitation to apply technology refreshment only to COTS items is not applicable. It can apply to 

custom electronics as well. The DMSMS community is not responsible for managing the content 

and schedule for a program’s technology refreshments. These technology refreshments, 

however, should be informed by DMSMS management’s analysis of product discontinuance 

notices (PDNs), OEM surveys, the results generated by predictive tool algorithms, and knowledge 

of typical commercial technology life cycles. These data at the item level can be integrated to 

examine higher-level assemblies in what is often referred to as a health assessment (or 

“tombstone chart”). Given this understanding of when and what within the system will be affected 

by obsolescence, the DMT can recommend DMSMS resolutions—life-of-need procurement to 

provide the inventory necessary to support demand for that item, substitutes or other sources of 

supply, changing repair processes, and so forth—to extend the technology refreshment point. 

The optimal technology refreshment date will be that point in time when the sum of the cost of 

individual resolutions is greater than the cost to redesign. 

Technology insertion. Technology insertion integrates mature technologies with requirements and 

logistics planning in order to expand system capability as well as increase readiness, reduce lifecycle costs, and reduce the logistics footprint. A program can avoid significant costs by 

determining optimum technology insertion dates. For example, a redesign to upgrade a product 

should simultaneously seek to eliminate obsolete or near obsolete parts (as identified via a health 

assessment), because it is more cost-effective to resolve a DMSMS issue simultaneously, rather 

than as a standalone, out-of-cycle redesign. 

A program’s technology roadmaps also contribute to DMSMS management. They can improve 

predictions of the EOL and provide information that influences how resolutions are implemented. 

 

34 Marie L. Garcia and Olin H. Bry, Fundamentals of Technology Roadmapping, SAND97-0665 

(Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, April 1997). 

35 Pete Pizzutillo, “Technology Refreshment—A Management/Acquisition Perspective,” July 2001. 

30
SD-22 – January 2016 

Effective technology management implies that resolutions are planned before the effects of obsolescence 

or other technology-related change occur. This is perhaps the most robust form of DMSMS management. 

3. Prepare: DMSMS Management Program Infrastructure 

This section describes the Prepare step of the DMSMS management program. It encompasses 

establishing the strategic underpinnings for robust DMSMS management, developing a DMP, forming a 

properly trained DMT to carry out all DMSMS activities, and establishing DMSMS operational 

processes—securing operational funding, case management, program evaluation, and QA. As the first 

step, Prepare lays the groundwork for the other four DMSMS management process steps. 

3.1. Establish the Strategic Underpinnings for DMSMS Management 

The PM should establish the strategic underpinnings for DMSMS management of the program. These 

strategic underpinnings set the priorities for the DMSMS management approach to be pursued by the 

program’s DMT and documented in its DMP.

Program leadership may be tempted to delegate the establishment of the strategic direction to the DMT. 

However, doing so could result in a program whose scope of effort documented in the DMP does not 

match the funding obtained and available to support DMSMS management or program management’s 

expectations. Therefore, program leadership should engage early (before the DMP is finalized) to define 

the objectives for DMSMS management, the roles and responsibilities of DMT members, and DMT 

operating guidelines. 

To establish the specific DMSMS management objectives for its program, program leadership should 

refine and elaborate upon the three overarching objectives identified in Section 1.3. For example, a PM 

might establish objectives such as the following: (1) exclude the introduction of obsolete or soon-to-be 

obsolete items from the system design, (2) eliminate or minimize the scope of DMSMS-related out-ofcycle redesigns throughout the life cycle, (3) eliminate DMSMS-related production schedule impacts while 

in design or production, and (4) eliminate DMSMS-related degradations to readiness during sustainment. 

Program leadership should also provide expectations regarding the procedures for and frequency of DMT 

meetings. The procedures and frequency of DMT meetings will be a function of the number and criticality 

of DMSMS issues encountered and the maturity of DMSMS management for the program (e.g., a new 

program with a new DMT may require more frequent meetings than are required for a program with a 

more established DMT). 

Program leadership should also define the role of and relative relationships among DMT members 

(including getting the right DMSMS management-related requirements on contract to support these roles 

and responsibilities and effective DMSMS management overall), both inside and outside the context of 

DMT meetings, and the program’s processes for monitoring DMSMS issues, creating DMSMS cases, 

assessing their impact, analyzing what to do about them, and obtaining program decisions regarding 

resolutions. These roles and responsibilities not only clarify what is expected of individual DMT members, 

but also how each individual’s performance will be rated from a program leadership perspective. Section 

3.3 contains more detailed information regarding the composition and duties of the DMT. 

Program leadership should establish risk-based operating guidelines. For many programs, operating 

guidelines will consist of similar, relatively generic statements such as the following: 















Maintain case management data on all DMSMS issues. 

Monitor items and assemblies to identify obsolescence issues. 

Assess the impact of obsolescence issues. 

Analyze ways to resolve the obsolescence issues cost-effectively. 

Oversee the implementation of the resolutions. 

These generic operating guidelines should be refined by program leadership to account for risk. 

To do so, program leadership should address the following questions: 

Which subsystems should have priority for monitoring? Prioritization should be based on such 

considerations as mission criticality, safety, or known problem areas. 

31
SD-22 – January 2016 





What items within those subsystems should be monitored? The answer to this question is a 

function of the risks that program management is willing to accept. These risks are manifested 

when a strategic determination is made of which items to proactively monitor (and by default, 

which items should be managed reactively) for a system or subsystem of interest. 

There are, in fact, three separate strategic determinations to be made: 

o The first two determinations apply to those items that are found on a system’s bill of 

materials. Examples of such items listed on a BOM could include anything from 

microprocessors and application-specific integrated circuits to diesel engines and pumps 

to adhesives and insulating materials. 





Determination 1. Determine the heuristic algorithms based on item life cycles to 

use in order to identify the items to definitely monitor and those not to monitor. 

Determination 2. Determine whether further analysis will be performed on 

uncategorized items, those items for which the heuristics did not provide a 

definitive answer with regard to whether to monitor or not monitor. 

o The third determination applies to critical materials (e.g., hazardous, exotic, and supplyconstrained materials) that appear in lower tiers of the items listed on BOMs. 

 Determination 3. Determine whether to investigate how critical materials in the 

supply chain may alter the status of items being proactively monitored. Knowing 

whether there are critical materials present in or used in the manufacturing 

process of an item on a BOM will improve the analysis of availability of that item. 







The approach for the analysis behind these determinations is described in Chapter 4 as part of 

the Identify step of robust DMSMS management. DMSMS subject matter experts can provide 

advice to program management concerning these determinations. They can suggest the best 

heuristics, based on item life cycles, to use. They can explain and carry out the analysis needed 

to clarify what to monitor where the need for proactive monitoring is not determined by applying 

the selected heuristics. They can describe a low-cost method of finding information about critical 

materials in the supply chain. Ultimately, program management must decide whether resources 

should be applied to DMSMS management to reduce risk to an acceptable level. 

When should DMSMS management begin? As a best practice, proactive DMSMS management 

should begin early in the life cycle, preferably at the time of a preliminary design review. Pursuing 

proactive DMSMS management for electronic items early is important, because there have been 

numerous examples of obsolete electronic items being incorporated into designs, virtually 

assuring sustainment issues if they are not discovered. Because the market forces driving 

DMSMS issues for MaSME items operate much more slowly than the competitive commercial 

electronics market, one might question whether to begin DMSMS management for these items 

later in the life cycle. It remains a best practice, however, to begin proactive DMSMS 

management for MaSME items at the same time as electronic items, for several reasons. First, 

the earlier that monitoring begins, the larger the window of opportunity to address an issue, the 

larger the selection of less expensive resolutions, and the smaller the likelihood of experiencing 

schedule and readiness impacts. Second, since a program will only be monitoring high-risk 

MaSME items, proactive monitoring of such items should begin early. Third, MaSME item 

monitoring can be integrated with electronic item monitoring. Finally, beginning to monitor early 

will enable designs containing high-risk MaSME items to be revised before it is much more costly 

to do so later. 

How important is DMSMS management for software? If a system is heavily dependent on COTS 

software, the management of software obsolescence should be assigned a relatively high priority. 

Software obsolescence management for older systems primarily using custom software for 

mission-critical applications and COTS software only for user interfaces should be assigned a 

lower priority as long as no changes are anticipated. If changes are anticipated, the priority 

assigned to software obsolescence management is dependent on access to the critical human 

skills needed. 

32
SD-22 – January 2016 







A risk-based perspective to monitoring is important because robust, proactive DMSMS 

management everywhere is not cost-effective and will be unnecessarily time-consuming. A riskbased approach takes into consideration the differing sizes (and associated number of parts) of 

the systems and thus the workload required for monitoring DMSMS. At one end of the spectrum, 

everything could be proactively monitored to predict obsolescence before the item is no longer 

available. However, for many items, the impact of obsolescence is small because alternatives are 

readily available. A risk-based approach to DMSMS management strikes a balance among highrisk items that should always be proactively monitored, items that are broadly available over a 

long period of time, and everything in between. Additional information regarding levels of riskbased prioritization can be found in Sections 4.1 and 4.3.2. 

With regard to DMT deliverables, program leadership should identify those artifacts and data 

necessary to manage DMSMS activities for the program. Examples of useful deliverables are the 

documentation of all DMSMS cases in the program’s case management system, the capture of 

metrics associated with DMT operations and results, and the periodic assessment of the health of 

the system. 

Because it may not participate in the day-to-day activities of DMSMS management, program 

leadership should establish ground rules regarding when it and other key stakeholders should be 

briefed and the PM’s role in decision making. At a minimum, the timing of briefings to program 

leadership should correspond to the timing of the completion of DMT meetings and major DMT 

deliverables. It should be established whether the PM maintains decision authority for all 

resolutions or just certain classes of resolutions. In support of this decision authority role, the PM 

must commit to being accessible to the DMT in order to prevent delays and assist in removing 

barriers to decisions. 

3.2. Develop a DMSMS Management Plan 

3.2.1. Planning Considerations 

A program cannot have effective DMSMS management without an adequate plan. The DMP is the key 

planning document that describes how the regulatory requirement for DMSMS management will be 

implemented within the LCSP for the program. Formulation of the DMP should begin early in the life 

cycle—preferably, immediately after Milestone A—because the DMP provides a robust DMSMS 

management framework for a program. 

The DMP describes the tailored DMSMS management processes to be pursued by a program. Tailoring 

of DMSMS management processes will be a function of the extensiveness of a program’s infrastructure, 

resources, priorities, and constraints (e.g., the number of people, the amount of funding, access to 

BOMs/parts lists, and the ability to survey) and the strategic underpinnings for DMSMS management 

established by the program leadership. 

While the PM establishes the strategic underpinnings for DMSMS management for his or her program 

and is ultimately responsible for final approval of the DMP, the DMT develops the DMP. When developing 

the DMP, the DMT should address several interrelated questions whose answers affect the near-term 

objectives of the DMP and the DMT. The questions are as follows: 

 What is the AS and what life-cycle phase should be emphasized for the planning effort? As the 

system moves through the life cycle, the DMT’s focus may shift from providing government 

oversight of contractor DMSMS processes and delivery of management products to the 

government for acceptance, to conducting organic DMSMS assessments and sustainment 

planning. In the technology maturation and risk reduction phase and the engineering and 

manufacturing development phase, for example, the government should ensure that the 

contractor is minimizing obsolescence throughout the contract period of performance by selecting 

products that avoid or resolve hardware, material, and software obsolescence issues. During the 

production and deployment phase, the government should ensure that the contractor is able to 

meet production requirements as well as ensure that the government will be able to sustain the 

product over the long term. During the O&S phase, the government may want contractor support 

for DMSMS management and ensure that the system can be sustained until the next upgrade or 

replacement system. 

33
SD-22 – January 2016 



l

i

i

l









What is the long-term sustainment strategy of the program? The answer to this question affects 

the DMP objectives as well as the composition of the DMT and the availability of technical data. 

The party ultimately responsible for long-term sustainment must participate in the DMT to ensure 

that the appropriate groundwork is laid to meet the long-term objectives of the DMP. No 

assumptions should be made regarding long-term sustainment responsibilities. For example, if 

the DMP assumes that a contractor will provide sustainment support for the life of the system, 

and a later decision is made to use an organic depot, the government may not have the 

appropriate DMSMS data to meet the system sustainment requirements. In such a situation, the 

DMP must include exit strategies established by contract exit clauses to ensure both a smooth 

transition of responsibilities and the availability of technical data throughout the program’s life 

cycle, not just until the end of the contract. Furthermore, government and industry often have 

different perspectives on long-term sustainment. The contractor usually focuses on the end of its 

contract. 

What is the program’s approach to maintaining a life-cycle perspective on DMSMS? For many 

programs, a prime contractor will have responsibility for performing day-to-day DMSMS 

management. Since the prime contractor’s work is based on contracts of limited time duration, 

their period of responsibility corresponds only to the period of performance for the contract. The 

DMT needs to develop a provision through its DMP (reinforced via contracts, as necessary) that 

enables the government to manage DMSMS issues and their resolution across breaks in 

contracts (e.g., between production contracts, between a production contract and a sustainment 

contract, and between sustainment contracts). The ability to manage across contracts will require 

the ability to estimate the true life of need (e.g., when the system retires and when the next 

technology insertion is scheduled). The ability to procure and maintain the stocks of an item or 

assembly to satisfy through the life of need is crucial. This could require the inclusion, in contract 

anguage, of a requirement for true life-of-need (not life-of-contract) buys or provisions for 

handling life-of-need stocks as government-furnished material. 

Who are the stakeholders for the robust management of DMSMS issues for the program 

(including other DMSMS management programs that interact with the DMSMS management 

program for the system in question)? The answer to this question determines the composition of 

the DMT, as well as its members’ roles and responsibilities, and takes into account the contracts 

n place or expected to be in place. The DMT should keep in mind that roles and responsibilities 

of various stakeholders—for example, government organizations, OEMs, and independent 

subject matter experts (SMEs)—and oversight relationships can evolve and change depending 

upon the phase of the life cycle. The answer also affects the communication flows needed to 

mplement the DMSMS management processes that the DMT develops. One important flow for 

communication that should be documented in the DMP is the process for how DMT action items 

(i.e., assigned responsibilities and suspense dates) will be documented and monitored. In 

addition, the DMT will determine a desired frequency for monitoring and surveillance activities. 

Finally, the answer helps define the management products that the DMT delivers to its members 

as a function of the data needed to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities. 

What are the near-term and long-term DMP objectives? At the most basic level, the DMP’s 

objective is to reduce DMSMS cost, schedule, readiness, and availability risks to an acceptable 

evel. The specific definition of “acceptable” is a function of the size, complexity, and cost of the 

system, as well as the current life-cycle stage, the AS, the LCSP, and the technology refreshment 

or technology insertion strategy. The near-term objectives, however, will drive the composition of 

the DMT, the roles and responsibilities of the DMT members, the processes and communication 

flows that the DMT needs to define and develop the necessary data inputs into those processes, 

and the management products that will be outputs of those processes. 

What DMSMS management activities are being performed by the prime contractor? The DMT 

should not try to duplicate prime contractor activities; the DMP should be aligned with what the 

contractor is doing based on its own internal DMP. If the prime contractor is effectively managing 

DMSMS risk and similar requirements are being flowed down the supply chain, the DMT’s role 

should be focused on oversight. The DMT should not make assumptions about what the prime 

34
SD-22 – January 2016 

contractor is or is not doing. The facts can be obtained only from a careful examination of contract 

language and actual contractor processes. Regardless of the relative roles of the government and 

the prime contractor in DMSMS management, the government is ultimately the responsible party. 

What types of processes should be developed and what products are needed to successfully 

manage DMSMS issues? Although many general DMSMS management processes and products 

are transferrable from program to program at a high level, the DMT must ensure that processes 

and products are tailored to meet the program’s specific needs at the working level. The DMP 

should consider the unique needs of the program, the unique needs of each stakeholder, and the 

unique flow of communication required among the stakeholders to ensure that the process 

enables fulfillment of the DMP objectives. In addition, the DMP must consider the data sources 

necessary to implement the DMSMS management processes and produce the DMSMS 

management products. 

Where should the program be reactive and where should the program be proactive? Nearly 

everything will become obsolete or unavailable over time. However, not all situations need to be 

handled proactively. In some circumstances, the risk of impact is low if a program waits until an 

item cannot be purchased before dealing with the situation. For example, there may be 

commercially available alternatives to certain parts categories, such as electrical and mechanical 

COTS assemblies and standard industrial parts. Active monitoring may be more important for 

custom electronic and COTS assemblies.36 While proactive monitoring may not be necessary for 

one-time manufactured items, the program should be properly prepared (i.e., with technical data) 

to reproduce those items if required. 

What resources are available to fund DMT operations? Initial planning should not be resource 

constrained but rather should seek to address the strategic underpinnings for DMSMS 

management laid down by the program leadership. However, those initial DMP objectives, 

DMSMS management processes and products, and, to some extent, the DMT composition itself 

may need to be constrained if the program’s leadership cannot obtain sufficient funding to support 

the realization of that initial plan. In such an instance, program leadership should explicitly 

acknowledge that it is accepting greater risk and appropriately revise the initial set of strategic 

underpinnings for DMSMS management, prior to the final approval of the DMP. 







The DMT is the program entity that has management authority to put the approved DMT into action. 

Programs sometimes use DMSMS intensity levels to identify the current state of their DMSMS 

management practices and to determine a desired future state for those practices. A higher intensity level 

indicates a more robust approach to DMSMS management, which implies that a high-performing DMT is 

actively engaged in doing the following: 











Monitoring critical items in the system using predictive DMSMS management systems, vendor 

surveys, and other research techniques 

Overseeing contractor DMSMS management efforts in a comprehensive way

Assessing readiness, availability, cost, and schedule risks to the program, because of item or 

materials obsolescence 

Conducting analyses to determine the most cost-effective resolution, including actions at higher 

levels of assembly 

Overseeing implementation of resolutions to ensure that all stakeholders carry out their assigned 

roles and responsibilities. 

 

36 Custom electronic and COTS assemblies are mission-specific equipment designed by the prime 

contractor or a subcontractor specifically for the program. 

35
SD-22 – January 2016 

A robust DMSMS management approach does not imply being proactive everywhere. Program 

leadership should weigh in on its expectations regarding the scope of proactive DMSMS management. 

Proactive DMSMS management means being proactive when it is important, for example, when 









the readiness or availability impact of a shortage is acute, 

resolution implementation takes a long period of time, 

the cost of delaying resolution is potentially high, or 

a production schedule is likely to be affected. 

In some situations (especially for common mechanical items), a reactive DMSMS management approach 

is robust, because many alternatives can be used. Although a robust DMP will be more expensive to 

implement, the resulting cost savings and cost avoidance by being proactive throughout the life cycle will 

be greater and DMSMS impacts on readiness, availability, and schedule will be lower. 

Appendix J contains information to help guide a decision on the appropriate target DMSMS intensity level 

for a program. The DMP should then be designed to achieve that target. 

Finally, DMPs are not static; they should be living plans. DMSMS management contracts change. The 

tools and processes employed change. Even more minor changes—such as modifying the roles and 

responsibilities of DMT members, a life-cycle extension, changes in procurement plans, or significant 

changes in operating tempo—will occur. All changes may drive revisions to the DMP. 

3.2.2. Outline of DMP Contents 

The DMP should be signed and approved by senior program leaders to demonstrate their agreement and 

support for the actions prescribed in the plan. This is especially important when competing for resources. 

The outline and format for the DMP are not prescribed. However, the DMP should not be a tutorial on 

DMSMS management. Instead, it should include only what the program intends to accomplish. As a best 

practice, the DMP should include the following: 







Introductory context considerations 

o

o

o

o

o

Relevant system-specific information 

Program milestones 

Near-term DMSMS program objectives 

Long-term DMSMS program objectives 

Scope of DMSMS management effort 

Management considerations 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

DMSMS management approach (including prioritization approaches) 

DMSMS management tools, databases, and systems 

DMSMS contractual language, including requirements flow-down to subcontractors 

Contract exit strategies 

DMSMS budgeting and funding 

Relevant stakeholders 

DMT structure and membership 

Roles and responsibilities of the DMT and each member of the DMT 

DMSMS training 

Process considerations 

o Design techniques for mitigating DMSMS impacts 

36
SD-22 – January 2016 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Access to up-to-date item information suitable for DMSMS management 

System architecture/CM

DMSMS case management process 

Synchronization with funded technology refreshment plans and product roadmaps 

References to lead-free and counterfeit parts control plans 

Quality assurance 

DMSMS mitigation strategy 

Metrics collection and analysis 

DMSMS management products. 

The Department of the Army’s multi-service expert system—Systems Planning and Requirements 

Software, or SYSPARS—is available to assist PMs and PSMs with the preparation of product support, 

supportability planning, and other acquisition and program management documentation, including the 

DMP.37

3.3. Form a DMSMS Management Team 

The PM or PSM should charter the DMT and clearly identify and authorize its activities as well as the 

roles and responsibilities of its members inside and outside the context of the DMT. The DMT should 

represent both internal and external organizations that provide routine and recurring support to the 

DMSMS management program. In some cases, it may be appropriate for representatives of other system 

DMTs to participate if their DMPs and processes interact. In other cases, multiple layers of DMTs may 

exist (e.g., at the program level and for some subsystems); in these instances, subsystem level DMTs 

should participate in and leverage the program office DMT, as appropriate. 

3.3.1. Roles and Responsibilities of DMT Members 

The roles and responsibilities of the program office, the prime contractor, the OEMs, and independent 

SMEs are among those established by program leadership in the DMSMS management strategic 

underpinnings. The DMP further expands upon the roles and responsibilities of the DMT as well as its 

composition in overseeing and managing obsolescence, including software, to the extent that it is a 

strategic priority. For example, the DMP may include information on technology refreshment plans. Such 

plans may also include software upgrades. Also, they may include requirements for hardware and 

software vendor surveys or for tracking the extent to which the software satisfies information assurance 

requirements. Finally, appropriate contract language should be developed to carry out the prime 

contractor and/or OEM responsibilities. 

The roles and responsibilities of the DMT are similar for every program, but the level of effort required of 

the team will depend on the complexity of the program and the severity of the DMSMS issues. In general, 

the activities of the DMT are to gather the necessary data, develop and implement the DMSMS 

management processes that require those data, produce the management products that result, report 

metrics that measure the effectiveness of the DMSMS management program when compared to the 

defined objectives, and apply continuous improvement processes to DMT operations. The roles should be 

tailored to meet specific program needs. 

The composition of the team will depend on the complexity of the program as well as on other 

considerations. For example, some program team members may have multiple duties, which may affect 

the amount of time they can devote to DMT activities, or they may be assigned multiple roles on the DMT. 

As another example, if the responsibility for the system will be transferred to another agency or activity 

midway through the life cycle, the stakeholder who will ultimately bear responsibility for sustainment 

 

37 See https://www.logsa.army.mil/lec/syspars/. 

37
SD-22 – January 2016 

should participate in the DMT during all phases of the life cycle. The DMT composition may evolve over 

time. Early in the life cycle, before the Critical Design Review (CDR), a partial team may be sufficient. 

Ideally, a DMT should consist of the following roles: 













DMT lead. The DMT lead is the spokesperson for the DMT and oversees and has the authority to 

control DMSMS management operations. The DMT lead is also the champion of DMSMS for the 

program and, as a best practice, should be a full-time position; both conditions signal the 

importance placed upon DMSMS management by program leadership. The DMT lead is 

responsible for coordinating DMT meetings and managing corresponding action items, identifying 

potential sources of funding and funding availability, requesting funding and other resources to 

support the program, overseeing the DMSMS management support contracts and agreements, 

interfacing with the configuration control board (CCB), and reporting on DMSMS risks at 

technical, logistics, and programmatic reviews. This role should be filled from logistics, 

engineering, or program management organizations by an individual who possesses sufficient 

knowledge of DMSMS issues to be able to communicate to decision makers on the importance of 

actions regarding DMSMS cases. This role may sometimes be filled by the DMSMS SME. 

Program office representative. The program office representative represents the views of the PM 

on the DMT. Normally, this person would be the DMT lead and champion of DMSMS for the 

program. 

DMSMS SME. The SME coordinates the execution of DMT management processes and the 

development of DMT management products. This includes, for example, assessing obsolescence 

forecasts, processing BCAs, preparing budget forecasts, and presenting solution options to the 

DMT for discussion and concurrence. In addition, the SME assists with establishing the DMT and 

with developing and maintaining the program’s DMP as a living document. Furthermore, the SME 

monitors the effectiveness of the DMSMS management program and recommends ways to 

continually improve it by capturing and assessing metrics that accurately measure the success or 

failure of meeting the defined DMSMS management program objectives. 

Engineering activity representative. The DMT member representing the engineering function 

(including industrial, mechanical, electrical, and general engineering expertise, as well as a 

systems integrator perspective) is responsible for managing the incorporation of DMSMS-related 

technical data into government drawings, technical publications, and documentation. The 

engineering activity representative provides information to the DMT regarding resource 

requirements, systems integration engineering, and reliability and maintainability analyses on 

items selected for use on the system. The engineering activity representative also assesses the 

suitability and feasibility of proposed technical solutions. Early in the life cycle, the engineering 

activity representative may also include the prime contractor representative, if that is the source 

of greatest expertise. The engineering activity representative should also be the DMT’s interface 

to the technology road-mapping community. 

Software SME. The DMT should include a software SME, but all DMT members should possess 

a certain set of software obsolescence competencies. Even for those programs that do not place 

a high priority on software obsolescence, software expertise is valuable because hardware 

resolutions have the potential to affect software. Robust DMSMS management requires effective 

communication among all stakeholders. They must be made aware of hardware and software 

interdependencies and the potential impact of alternative resolutions, including the status quo. 

Having software expertise on the DMT facilitates the communications necessary to ensure that all 

resolutions are properly implemented. 

Supply support activity representative. The supply support activity representative is an ad-hoc 

team member who provides his or her organization’s viewpoint on DMSMS issues. The team may 

have several supply support activity representatives, for example, item managers from DLA. DLA 

involvement, in particular, can augment a DMT’s efforts with research on DLA-managed items, 

additional but limited DMSMS management expertise and product knowledge, and a crosssystem perspective that can highlight impending, otherwise unforeseen problems and potential 

resolutions. 

38
SD-22 – January 2016 









Value engineering (VE) SME. A VE representative is an ad-hoc team member who can offer 

advice regarding the best-value resolutions to pursue to address DMSMS issues, as well as how 

those resolutions are synchronized with program roadmaps to integrate new technologies and 

current and future mission requirements.

Contracting office representative. The DMT member representing the contracting office is an adhoc team member who provides guidance and administrative requirements for support contracts 

and agreements. This person also helps the DMT ensure that there is no ambiguity in the 

contractor’s DMSMS management requirements.

Prime/subcontractor representative. Depending upon the terms of the contract, the 

prime/subcontractor representative ensures that the OEM fulfills its roles and responsibilities with 

respect to DMSMS management as outlined in the contract. In addition, the prime contractor 

representative may serve as the DMSMS management lead for subcontractors and present 

DMSMS issues and risks to the DMT. 

FMS representative. The FMS representative helps optimize DMSMS resolutions by providing 

information that enables all users to be considered. Mitigating DMSMS issues in a program 

should account for both U.S.-owned and foreign-owned platforms (obtained through FMS or 

direct commercial sales), because all of these assets create demands that affect item availability. 

In addition, cost-related benefits that exist for one user may be able to be leveraged in the 

resolutions being developed by another user. Although U.S. and foreign DMSMS management 

processes are similar, there are additional considerations in an international situation (technology 

security, information assurance, International Traffic in Arms Regulations, etc.). The DMSMS 

SME must interface with the FMS representative and the appropriate international point of contact 

before taking any actions. 

Below are examples of other roles that the DMT could include, depending on the program’s DMSMS 

management infrastructure and objectives: 











Budget office representative 

Maintenance repair activity representative 

Software license management group representative38

Environmental and materials engineering representative 

CCB representative. 

Some roles may be combined, while some of the responsibilities may be deleted or new ones added over 

time. The most effective DMT organization allows for open communication among the team members, 

whether they are representing the government, the prime contractor, or subcontractors. Such open 

communication is critical for robust DMSMS management. 

Ultimately, the PM is responsible for DMSMS management for the program. An 

Accountable/Responsible/Consulted/Informed (ARCI) chart is a good way to depict the relative roles and 

responsibilities required of each DMT member in order to implement DMSMS management in line with 

the program leadership’s established strategic underpinnings for DMSMS management. Different types of 

responsibility are defined as follows: 

 

38 Unlike hardware, software often requires a license or agreement. Although maintaining software 

licenses and maintenance agreements are not normally a DMT responsibility, the DMT may want to take 

responsibility if software presents a critical obsolescence issue for the program. If a license management 

group is doing this work, the DMT should maintain an open line of communication with that group to 

remain cognizant of the status of licenses. 

39
SD-22 – January 2016 











Accountable (A). Identifies the individual who is ultimately accountable for the completion of the 

activity and who has the ability to say “Yes” or “No.” There may be one and only one “A” for a 

decision or activity at each organizational level. 

Responsible (R). Identifies the individual or individuals who are responsible at each level of the 

organization to execute a specific assignment for an activity. The degree of responsibility is 

determined by the person accountable. There can be multiple “R”s for one activity at each 

organizational level. 

Consulted (C). Identifies the individual who must be consulted before a decision or activity is 

finalized. This represents two-way communication. There can be multiple “C”s for one activity at 

each organizational level. 

Informed (I). Identifies the individual who must be notified about the completion or output of the 

decision or activity. This represents one-way communication. There can be multiple “I”s for one 

activity at each organizational level. 

Not Informed (N). Identifies individuals who do not need to be notified about the completion or 

output of the decision or activity. There can be multiple “N”s for one activity at each organizational 

level. 

Table 3 is a notional example (rows and columns are not complete, and entries are hypothetical) of such 

an ARCI chart, which shows the types of responsibility required relative to a set of roles and DMSMS 

management activities. 

Table 3. Notional ARCI Chart 

Role 

Activity 

 da leDMT

ice 

 e

ff

tiv

 o

ta

m

ne

a

s

r

e

g

r

o

p

r

e

P

r

 EM DMSMS S

e

gin

tiv

reineg

activity 

tanese

n

rp

E

er

 etiv ta

B

n

CC

eserper

t r

e

op

tiv

p

ta

ly su

nese

p

r

p

p

u

e

S

r

e

g

tiv

ctin

ta

a

ice

ne

tr

ff

Con

s

o

erper

 rcto

 e

a

tiv

rt

ta

n

n

 co

eserpe

rimeP

r

Meeting coordination A I C I I I I I 

Funding requirements R A C C N N I C 

Future budget projections R A C C N N C C 

DMSMS monitoring A I R I N I N C 

DMSMS solution implementation C A C R, C R C, I I R, C 

Contracting C R I I N I A C 

Supply support I I C C I A, R I C, I 

Responsibilities may change significantly, depending on how the prime contractor is being used to 

support DMSMS activities (see Appendix C). In many instances, the prime contractor is responsible for 

most of these activities. 

As a best practice, program leadership should strive to use its personnel as efficiently as possible to 

implement DMSMS management. For example, in-house engineering personnel should not be diverted to 

perform routine, day-to-day DMSMS management activities. Individuals with more specialized expertise 

and experience are located within the prime contractor or the OEM, as well as independent SMEs. These 

existing resources and resident expertise should be leveraged by programs to the greatest extent 

possible. The prime contractor has the most in-depth knowledge of the system and, therefore, should also 

be involved throughout the system life cycle. 

40
SD-22 – January 2016 

It is likewise a best practice for a program to employ independent SMEs, even if the prime contractor is 

already intimately involved in DMSMS management for the program. Independent SMEs can (1) assist 

the government with overseeing the prime contractor, particularly in terms of ensuring consideration of a 

life-cycle perspective; (2) give an independent perspective on issues and resolutions; (3) provide access 

to specialized tools, processes, data, and unique supplier relationships that may not be available to the 

prime contractor; (4) advise a program on formulating contract language, securing BOMs, developing a 

statement of work (SOW) for DMSMS activities for a prime contractor, and other responsive, tailored 

support to specific needs; (5) serve as a central linkage to DMSMS activities and best practices in other 

programs; and (6) provide a conduit to improved access to supplier data in a competitive situation. 

Independent SMEs may also prove helpful during sustainment, if the government is entirely responsible 

for sustainment support and the prime contractor has little or no role. 

Although each DMT should have a DMSMS SME, it is not always necessary to find that expertise within 

the program. Centralized DMSMS SME teams reside within various organizations across DoD. These 

teams have in-house DMSMS management expertise and well-established processes that any program 

can easily leverage to implement a DMSMS program. In addition to having an established knowledge 

base and documented processes that enable robust DMSMS management, some of these teams own 

DMSMS management systems that experienced DMSMS practitioners use to integrate, analyze, and 

report on DMSMS-related data collected using predictive tools, vendor surveys, and PDNs received 

directly from manufacturers. The DKSP has a list of centralized DMSMS SME teams. 

3.3.2. DMT Training Needs 

All members of the DMT should be trained on their role in supporting DMSMS management for the 

program. Not all members of the DMT are expected to be DMSMS SMEs or reach a targeted competency 

level; however, the DMT lead should identify minimum training requirements for DMT members on the 

basis of the DMSMS management approach, available resources, and the roles and responsibilities of 

each DMT member.39

The recommended minimum DAU DMSMS-specific courses are as follows: 













CLL 200, DMSMS: What Program Management Needs to Do and Why (forthcoming)40

CLL 201, DMSMS Fundamentals 

CLL 202, DMSMS Fundamentals: Executive Summary (forthcoming) 

CLL 203, DLA DMSMS Essentials 

CLL 204, DMSMS Case Studies 

CLL 205, DMSMS for the Technical Professional. 

Table 4 outlines training recommended for the different DMT roles. The DMT lead may use this as a 

guide but tailor it as necessary to meet the specific needs and constraints of the program. The important 

thing is that DMT members have the appropriate knowledge and skill base to carry out their 

responsibilities effectively. 

 

39 If the DMT membership changes, the new members should receive training on DMSMS and on 

their roles and responsibilities within the DMT. 

40 The DoD DMSMS program has revised the course content for the current “DMSMS for Executives” 

course. The new version of this course, “DMSMS: What Program Management Needs to Do and Why”

(CLL 200), covers two principal overarching learning objectives. The first makes the case to program 

management for why robust DMSMS management is important through a description of the ill effects of 

poor or reactive DMSMS management. The second highlights several strategic actions that program 

management should take to avoid or minimize the ill effects of poor or reactive DMSMS management. 

CLL 202 will be replaced next year. 

41
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 4. Recommended DMT Training 

Role CL 200 CLL 201 CLL 202 CLL 203 CLL 204 CLL 205 

DMT lead X X X X X X 

Program office representative X X X X X 

DMSMS SME X X X X X X 

Engineering activity representative X X X X 

Software SME X X X 

Supply support activity representative X X X X 

VE SME X X X X 

Contracting officer representative X X X 

Prime/subcontractor representative X X X X X 

FMS representative X X 

Budget office representative X X 

Maintenance repair activity representative X X 

Software license management group 

representative X X 

CCB representative X X X 

DMSMS SMEs should have a majority of the following knowledge, skills, and abilities: 

 Knowledge 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Background in logistics management and SE, as well as a thorough understanding of 

DoD policies and procedures as applied to DMSMS management, design interface, 

maintenance planning, and the acquisition and sustainment of a system 

Technical understanding of all logistics elements and SE principles and their impacts 

upon each other 

Mastery of DMSMS management concepts and policies sufficient to provide guidance 

and direction to logistics and engineering personnel on issues related to or affected by 

DMSMS issues and concerns 

In-depth knowledge of developing DMSMS management requirements and projecting 

funding requirements for an effective DMT 

In-depth knowledge of a DMSMS case-tracking system and DMSMS metrics 

Knowledge of the BCA process in the DMSMS decision process 

Knowledge of military and contractor supply chains, especially for commodities of focus 

Knowledge of the concepts, theories, and principles of system design, operations, and 

support 

Functional knowledge of the relationship between design interface, maintenance 

planning, engineering design, and DMSMS considerations necessary to create and 

establish innovative and effective program policies and procedures for systems as 

required by DoD activities and authorized FMS organizations 

Functional knowledge of DMSMS management for the development of agency policy, 

procedures, and processes for mitigating DMSMS issues 

 Skills 

42
SD-22 – January 2016 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Skilled in interacting with senior government and industry executives, as well as with 

other logisticians, engineers, and PMs, both individually and in groups 

Skilled in resolving conflict and negotiating solutions to complex technical issues 

Skilled in developing and evolving collaboration among commands and agencies to 

maximize the attainment of efficiencies to determine best practices and leverage existing 

processes 

Skilled in communicating with others to interpret contractual requirements for 

performance-based logistics (PBL) for DMSMS management support packages 

Skilled in communicating with others about the prevention of obsolescence of critical 

items 

Skilled in communicating clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing 

Skilled in perceiving relationships and effects between the subject under discussion and 

related areas of importance and bringing those relationships to the attention of all 

concerned 

 Abilities 

o

o

o

o

o

o

Ability to provide recommendations to program offices and field support teams to assist 

with planning and developing the DMP, statements of work, contract language, and LAs 

Ability to provide focused management and coordination across multiple stakeholders in 

support of DMSMS management 

Ability to chair and facilitate a DMT by developing annual goals and agendas and to 

direct the personnel and programs to meet the established goals 

Ability to identify, prioritize, and recommend solutions to the barriers that prevent a PM 

from establishing a robust DMSMS management program 

Ability to apply advanced concepts and theories to DMSMS issues and tasks so they may 

be resolved effectively and efficiently 

Ability to develop and establish DMSMS management processes and guidelines for all 

personnel to follow. 

Appendix B contains a comprehensive outline of DMSMS competency levels. The six DMSMS-specific 

courses identified at the beginning of this section as recommended minimum requirements for DMT 

members are also required courses, corresponding with the achievement of a DMSMS entry-level 

competency. Because the DMSMS competency does not exist in a vacuum and must be obtained in 

conjunction with DAU Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) certifications, additional 

courses are required to obtain the entry-level, technician-level, and leadership-level competencies and 

experience associated with the roles and responsibilities of DMSMS practitioners. 

3.4. Establish DMSMS Operational Processes 

A process is any activity or set of activities that uses resources to transform inputs into outputs. 

Processes have objectives, inputs, outputs, activities, constraints, and resources. Three foundational 

DMSMS processes have already been discussed in this section: (1) establish the strategic underpinnings 

for DMSMS management, (2) develop the DMP, and (3) form the DMT. As the DMT develops the 

DMSMS operational processes, the team must define the basic jobs needed to support the program office 

or other customers. The team must then define and understand the inputs, outputs, activities, resources, 

constraints, and schedule. In fact, once the operational processes have been developed, key DMSMS 

management events should be included in not only the DMP, but also the program’s integrated master 

plan (IMP) and integrated master schedule (IMS). 

Tools are involved throughout all DMSMS operations. The DMT should employ tools to collect, 

aggregate, store, and report data, as needed, to produce DMSMS management products. The DMT 

should use research tools, predictive tools, logistics tools, BOM analysis tools, BOM manager tools, and 

43
SD-22 – January 2016 

CM tools. The DMT will need to determine the appropriate tool mix for enabling the intended DMSMS 

management approach.41 Some of these tools are mentioned later in this section as part of the case 

management process. A more extensive discussion of tools can be found in Section 4. 

It is not necessary for the program to develop or purchase its own tools. Existing DMSMS management 

systems support many of the defined elements of DMSMS operations. These systems integrate DMSMS 

best practices, processes, an in-house knowledge base, and many of the aforementioned tool types into 

a single management system that enables robust DMSMS management. These systems include 

management databases that trained DMSMS practitioners use to integrate, analyze, forecast, and report 

on data collected from predictive tools, logistics tools, vendor surveys, PDNs received from 

manufacturers, and an in-house knowledge base. In addition, these DMSMS management systems 

facilitate high-level processes for surveying vendors, processing alert notifications, analyzing BOMs, 

analyzing data, researching items, forecasting, budgeting, reporting, managing DMSMS cases, and 

ensuring quality. These processes are, for the most part, transferrable. Programs can leverage these 

DMSMS management systems and their associated service offerings to implement a new DMSMS 

management program. The DKSP contains a complete list of DMSMS tools, management systems, and 

resources. 

DMSMS management processes can be categorized in many ways. Figure 8 shows the scheme used in 

this document. The DMT establishes and carries out all of the operational processes shown in the figure, 

but each process is associated primarily with one of the major DMSMS management process steps. 

 

41 When determining the appropriate tool mix, the DMT should consider the tools already being used 

by the contractors. 

44
SD-22 – January 2016 

 Figure 6. DMSMS Management Processes 
SD-22 – January 2016
SD-22 – January 2016 

The following subsections describe only those operational processes associated with the “Prepare: 

DMSMS management program infrastructure” step of the DMSMS management process, while the 

remaining operational processes are addressed in the remaining four sections of the main body of this 

document. 

3.4.1. Secure Resources for DMT Operations 

 Operations funding is the funding required to support the day-to-day functioning of DMSMS 

management for a program, separate from the funding that may be required for specific 

resolutions for identified DMSMS issues. Operations funding should take into account what will be 

paid to the OEM, as negotiated via contract, to perform DMSMS management. In addition, 

operations funding should consider what is necessary to support (1) DMT meeting attendance 

and logistics and (2) the government’s role in the oversight of or active involvement in monitoring 

and surveillance, assessment, and analysis of DMSMS resolutions, as well as developing, 

reviewing, and approving resolutions to DMSMS issues. The program leadership and DMT, 

particularly for a system heavily dependent on COTS software, should also consider the 

importance of monitoring software obsolescence in determining the amount of funding needed for 

DMSMS operations. Finally, internal program office resources should be allocated to DMSMS 

management. Beyond a minimum level of internal support needed, tradeoffs between in-house 

people and external funding can be made. 

The budget and funding for DMSMS management processes generally consist of three elements:42





Support for DMSMS planning and management. This element includes the following tasks: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

Attending meetings, including travel and other logistics, as needed 

Developing the DMP 

Agreeing upon, creating, documenting, implementing, and executing processes 

Agreeing upon the required management products, articulating the required formats, and 

producing the products 

Defining and reviewing metrics 

Ensuring quality. 

Data management, research, and forecasting. This element includes the following tasks: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Obtaining parts lists/BOMs 

Obtaining DMSMS analysis tools and management systems 

Formatting, ensuring the quality of, and loading parts lists/BOMs 

Analyzing BOMs 

Researching items 

Surveying vendors 

Processing PDNs 

Monitoring processes 

Managing data. 

 Data analysis and reporting. The following are illustrative activities: 

o Assessing operational impact 

 

42 Section 7 discusses funding for implementing DMSMS resolutions. 

47
SD-22 – January 2016 

o

o

o

o

Reporting (both formal and informal) 

Analyzing resolutions 

Managing cases 

Overseeing implementation. 

 As a best practice, program leadership should budget and program for the funding of DMSMS 

operations using a risk-based approach and in consultation with the DMT. Independent SMEs can 

help a program estimate both DMSMS operations and resolutions costs, based upon a program’s 

selected acceptance of risk. Below are some drivers of operations funding: 

 Start-up versus steady-state effort. Beyond the spike of initial start-up, the funding requirements 

for DMSMS management operations should be relatively stable. This reflects the fact that DMSMS 

management requires a set of both nonrecurring and recurring tasks. Startup DMSMS management 

tasks are predominantly nonrecurring and may require substantially more effort than that during 

steady state, which translates into differences in the funding needed to support DMSMS management 

under these two different conditions. Examples of start-up tasks are developing a DMP; obtaining, 

formatting, and loading parts lists/BOMs; carrying out any additional research and analysis required 

to ensure the quality of the data; and putting in place a case management database and tracking 

system. The scope of a DMSMS management start-up effort is also broader, addressing the entire 

parts list/BOM, all vendors, and all parts, rather than only changes to or periodic updates to a subset 

of these. Because of those factors, the funding required for start-up can be up to four times greater 

than that to maintain a steady-state DMSMS management effort. Table 5 compares the start-up and 

steady-state efforts required for data cleanup, vendor surveys, and item research. 

Table 5. Comparison of Start-Up and Steady-State Effort 

DMSMS monitoring and 

surveillance activity Start-up Steady state 

Data cleanup Entire BOM Only changes to the BOM 

Vendor surveys All vendors Only on a time-phased, periodic schedule 

Item research All items Only when certain conditions are met (e.g., item 

status changes, item has not been researched in a 

certain period of time, changes in the sources of an 

alternate item, packaging changes, revisit of a 

previous “no action required” item)





Monitoring and surveillance scope and level of effort. Monitoring and surveillance are recurring 

tasks for the DMSMS management of any program. If the program has adopted a risk-based 

approach to monitoring and surveillance, then decisions will have been made regarding which 

subsystems to monitor and which of their items and assemblies to monitor proactively. A program 

might also wish to consider the quality of the data available in the BOMs as a factor in 

determining the level of effort required to enable monitoring and surveillance, particularly in the 

beginning phases of a program. The scope and level of effort might fluctuate based upon the 

maturity of the DMSMS management program. More information on these monitoring and 

surveillance activities is provided in Section 4. 

Assessment and analysis level of effort. Assessment and analysis are recurring tasks for the 

DMSMS management of any program. The magnitude of the requirement is contingent upon the 

DMP and the number of items that the team chooses to assess. Also relevant is the level of detail 

required for periodic health assessments of the system from a DMSMS perspective (see Section 

4.6). 

48
SD-22 – January 2016 

With the above information, programs can estimate the funding required to support DMSMS management 

operations in order to inform the program’s overall programming and budgeting. Below are data elements 

that a program might consider for estimating operations funding: 

















Number of parts lists/BOMs to be addressed by the DMSMS management effort (dividing 

these into critical, mission essential, and non–mission critical may provide a program with the 

opportunity to phase in the assessment and analysis [and corresponding costs] of less critical 

ones over time, rather than all at once) 

Whether critical materials within the supply chain will be monitored (if so, then budget 

estimates for this workload are not likely to be sensitive to the results of the one-time identify 

processes) 

Number of man-hours required to perform the nonrecurring start-up tasks for each BOM 

Number of man-hours required to perform recurring steady-state tasks to monitor each parts 

list/BOM 

Number of man-hours required to perform recurring steady-state tasks to assess and analyze 

each parts list/BOM 

Hourly man-hour cost for participating stakeholders 

Number and cost of predictive tools to be used for monitoring 

Scope of involvement required for meetings, travel, health assessments, and generation of 

other reports. 

The responsible office (often the program office) must program and budget for the resources for these 

activities or, alternatively, formally acknowledge risk and revise expectations regarding the focus and 

scope of the program’s DMSMS management effort. Leadership support and agreement are critical to the 

success of this effort. DMT operations funding will not be precisely known until the results of the one-time 

identify processes are available, as they select the items to be monitored with predictive tools and vendor 

surveys. If these selections are significantly different from the estimates used to formulate the budgets, 

budget adjustments will be required. If the budgets cannot be adjusted, changes to the strategic 

underpinnings and the DMP should be made to explicitly recognize the risks being taken. The bottom line 

is that planned DMT operations should be based on the actual funding allocated to DMSMS management 

operations. 

The most effective rationale for obtaining DMSMS operations funding is to make the justification 

meaningful to the decision maker. The best way to approach this is to demonstrate the repercussions of 

inadequate funding on total ownership cost, the cost avoidance by being proactive, and/or mission 

capability and the return on investment (ROI) from DMSMS management activities. Because DMSMS 

management is not a standalone activity, including DMSMS-related resource requirements in the budgets 

of other activities, such as parts management, reliability and maintainability, or supportability activities, is 

often a successful tactic. Maintaining convincing metrics about accomplishments and cost avoidance by 

being proactive also helps justify DMSMS operations-related budget requests. 

3.4.2. Manage Cases 

The purpose of case management is to track and manage DMSMS issues from initial identification to 

implementation of a resolution and to provide a record of past issues and their respective approved 

resolutions. A program will need to document its approach (i.e., any criteria to be applied) regarding when 

to open an obsolescence case. Should it be for every item for which an EOL notice has been issued? 

Just for those items for which an EOL notice has been issued and current stocks will not support the 

system through end of need? Only for those items that will require a DMSMS resolution? Ideally, a 

program might want to open a case on every item for which there is an EOL notice, even if a resolution is 

not necessary, because it will provide more complete documentation and inform future DMSMS 

management efforts for the program. 

To facilitate DMSMS case management, the DMT should consider the use of a tracking tool or database 

built upon a case sheet, consisting of basic and status data, for each DMSMS issue. Depending on how 

49
SD-22 – January 2016 

software intensive a system is, a program’s case management database may include some additional 

data elements associated with software. The development of a case sheet would therefore mark the 

beginning of the case management process. One prime contractor undertook the development of a case 

management database to standardize and facilitate what had previously been a time-consuming manual 

process that required months to complete a basic status update for a case. Having a standard case 

management database enabled the program to expedite the resolution of issues as well as to ensure 

configuration control in the presentation of DMSMS issue case information across the program. 

The tracking tool or database should support functions such as the following: 



















Tracking by case number for future reference (including an ability to link to a previous, related 

case). 

Tracking of all appropriate part information and nomenclature (configuration and vendor parts) for 

manufacturer data, including last sale date and demand. 

Documentation of information on item higher assemblies and the criticality of impact. 

Documentation of the results of research and other engineering notes. 

Selection or identification of a particular DMSMS resolution or set of resolutions for each case. 

Determination of DMSMS resolution costs, cost avoidance by being proactive, and ROI. 

Assignment of action items to particular individuals or organizations related to a case, for 

example, who is responsible for working what aspects of the case. 

Tracking of the length of time to identify and resolve DMSMS issues, for example, the timing for 

the next case management action and the alignment of such actions with key dates, such as the 

dates by which a bridge buy will need to be made. 

Determination of the status of a DMSMS case, such as the following: 

o “Open”—cases that are actively being worked. Below are potential variants to “open” 

cases that a program might want to consider tracking further: 







“Open: Under Investigation”—cases that are open and one or more DMT 

members are actively investigating the identified DMSMS issue. Such an 

investigation will first seek to validate the existence of a DMSMS issue that has 

the potential to impact the program and then to identify a recommended 

resolution. 

“Open: Decision Pending”—cases that are open and for which the recommended 

resolution has been determined and is awaiting final program decision to proceed 

and/or funding. Information on opened cases requiring no action should be 

captured and fed back into the identify phase of the DMSMS management 

process, so that the case will not have to be investigated again, unless some 

new information comes to light. 

“Open: Implementation Pending”—cases that are open and for which the 

decision to proceed and funding have been obtained, but implementation of the 

approved resolution has yet to begin. 

“Open: Under Implementation”—cases that are open and for which the approved 

resolution is being actively implemented. 



o

o

“Closed”—cases for which the approved resolution has been fully implemented and 

fielded. 

“Watch List”—cases that are closed, but upon which the program has chosen to place 

further scrutiny to monitor if assumptions regarding obsolescence and resolutions remain 

consistent with new realities as a program progresses. For example, it is important to 

know if demand for an item is greater than the assumptions used to calculate the size of 

50
SD-22 – January 2016 

a life-of-need buy until the next technology refreshment/insertion. This would also apply 

to cases whose implementation is taking longer than expected. 

 Facilitation of communication with the DMT regarding the status of a DMSMS case. 

Some programs may track a resolution until it is completely implemented and fielded. Other programs 

may stop tracking a resolution once it has been funded, rather than tracking it through fielding, due to the 

length of time for implementation. Also, depending on the level of detail needed, programs may combine 

open and pending resolutions. The decision about the level of detail to be tracked should be made when 

the program establishes its case management process. 

A DMSMS case management report contains the relevant information—CAGE, part number, NSN, item 

type, next-higher assembly (NHA), and so forth—on DMSMS cases that are open (including all individual 

variants determined useful by the program), closed, and composing the watch list. Those reports include 

a synopsis of assigned priority, potential resolutions, selected resolutions, relevant points of contact, 

relevant case management metrics as defined by the DMT, and DMT action items relevant to each case. 

These case management reports are important, because they can be used for publicizing DMSMS 

successes and sharing data among other DoD platforms. Robust case management provides the basis 

for meaningful DMSMS program metrics. Effective outreach could help obtain funding both for DMT 

operations and for implementing resolutions to DMSMS issues. 

3.4.3. Evaluate Program 

The DMT should continually evaluate the effectiveness of the DMSMS management program measured 

against the defined DMT objectives. Recording and periodically analyzing performance metrics are 

important elements of this evaluation. Although metrics do not provide an answer to programs in and of 

themselves, many different metrics can and should be captured for a DMSMS program. Metrics indicate 

where a program should investigate further. 

The DMT should determine what metrics to use as a basis for evaluation, how to collect those metrics 

(contractual requirements may be necessary), and how frequently to report those metrics. In addition, a 

feedback loop is needed so that the DMT can continually improve the DMSMS processes, process inputs, 

and process outputs. Below are some examples of DMSMS program evaluation metrics: 



























Trends in health assessments 

Percentage of items forecasted to make it to end of need 

Percentage of BOMs and software monitored 

Number of DMSMS notifications or cases created or opened 

Number of proactive cases vs. reactive cases (only those reactive cases for which the program 

should have been proactive) 

Number of cases closed 

Number of cases pending decision 

Number of cases awaiting implementation 

Average time to case closure 

Average time to case resolution decision 

Average time to resolution implementation 

Estimated or actual cost avoidance by being proactive (depending on data available) 

Percentage of the program robustly managed, based on unit-level BOMs and assemblies in the 

system (e.g., percentage of BOMs and assemblies of the system to be monitored out of the total 

number of items of the system) 

51
SD-22 – January 2016 





ROI43

Operational availability deficiencies due to obsolescence that were avoided (e.g., when the 

resolution is put in place, quantify the operational deficiencies that would have taken place if that 

resolution was not implemented). 

Data for the cost avoidance by being proactive are often also used by programs to evaluate and 

showcase the effectiveness of its DMSMS management. The cost avoidance by being proactive is the 

difference in cost between resolving an identified obsolescence issue now or later. This is why it is 

important to always view cost avoidance in terms of being modified by being proactive. While no cost 

avoidance results from being reactive, in some cases, little or no cost avoidance results from being 

proactive. Estimates for the cost avoidance by being proactive have traditionally been calculated in one of 

two ways: (1) the difference between the cost of the selected resolution and the next viable resolution or 

(2) the difference between the lowest-cost viable resolution and that of a redesign. 

These estimation approaches are not without problems. For example, the first estimation approach 

assumes that if a program was reactive, then (1) the proactive resolution would not be feasible when the 

problem actually was identified and (2) the next viable proactive resolution from the past would still be 

feasible when the problem was identified. The second estimation approach implies that if a program was 

reactive, redesign is the only remaining option at the time the problem is identified. Both of these 

approaches overstate cost avoidance (the second method overstates more than the first). The true cost 

avoidance by being proactive can be determined 

only in hindsight on an item-by-item basis in programs that were entirely reactive. And, of course, no 

program should be entirely reactive. 

To the greatest extent possible, metrics should be focused on leadership concerns. In that way, leaders 

can be more readily convinced of the benefits of DMSMS management and, consequently, will be more 

likely to support the DMSMS management program. 

3.4.4. Ensure Quality 

DMSMS management support consists of complex processes using inputs from diverse sources and 

producing outputs supplied to customers with varying expectations and needs. Attention to the quality of 

these processes ensures the consistency and high quality of program support. Therefore, the DMT 

should operate within a well-defined and functioning quality management system (QMS). The DMT 

should ensure that a quality plan is established, with attention to process documentation, quality controls, 

meaningful metrics, and timely feedback loops in the areas of quality and process effectiveness. See 

Appendix I for more information on the QA process. 

 

43 ROI is a metric for evaluating that compares the magnitude and timing of investment gains with the magnitude and timing of costs. A high ROI means 

that gains compare favorably to costs. 

52
SD-22 – January 2016 

4. Identify: DMSMS Monitoring and Surveillance 

Monitoring and surveillance constitute the Identify step of the DMSMS management processes. This 

second step requires a program to monitor and survey its items and materials for EOL notices or other 

indicators of potential discontinuance. DMSMS monitoring and surveillance should begin as early as 

possible during the design phase and continue throughout the entire life cycle of the system. This section 

describes the monitoring and surveillance processes: 











System prioritization. This process entails the determination of the scope and focus (e.g., which 

subsystems of the system are of most interest, due to criticality, operational safety, or associated 

DMSMS-related costs) for the DMSMS management effort. 

Identification and procurement of monitoring and surveillance tools. This process entails 

identifying and procuring the DMSMS predictive forecasting and associated data collection and 

management tools to support the DMSMS management program. 

Collection and preparation of item data. This process encompasses the collection of BOMs and 

item data and the prioritization of items to eliminate those that can be easily replaced (such as 

fasteners) from items availability analysis. In addition, the BOM/parts list is prepared and loaded 

into a predictive tool for analyzing item availability. 

Analysis of item availability. This process includes the combination of market research and the 

use of predictive tools to determine initial, and subsequent, item availability baselines for 

immediate and near-term obsolescence issues for the program. 

Collection and update of programmatic and logistics data. This process entails the identification, 

collection, and update of programmatic and logistics data necessary to analyze item availability 

and, ultimately, to assess the DMSMS impact and determine a resolution. 

Figure 9 identifies the one-time processes and the recurring processes associated with DMSMS 

monitoring and surveillance. For the most part, system prioritization, identification and procurement of 

monitoring and surveillance tools, and collection and preparation of item data are one-time processes. 

However, depending on when the prioritization was done, new data on DMSMS issues may lead to 

additional systems being given a high priority. The major data cleanup effort during DMSMS management 

start-up for the program will also require upkeep to maintain consistency with configuration changes once 

DMSMS management has reached a steady state. The other two processes—analysis of item availability 

and collection and update of programmatic and logistics data—recur when either the program receives a 

new EOL notice directly or the output of the program’s predictive tools or market research surveys has 

been updated. 

Figure 7. DMSMS Monitoring and Surveillance Processes 

53
SD-22 – January 2016 





4.1. Prioritize Systems 

Robust DMSMS management may require monitoring and surveillance of thousands of items 

simultaneously. It could take months or even years, depending on the size of the system, the availability 

and format of data, and the program’s manpower, to load all of the program’s BOMs into a predictive tool. 

Prioritizing the scope and focus for the DMSMS management program, using a risk-based approach, is 

crucial for a complex platform, which typically has many subsystems, each with multiple units with 

multiple assemblies, which in turn include many items and software. Prioritization in this process is not a 

ranking of subsystems to monitor; rather, it is a “yes” or “no” DMT determination of what portions of the 

system to actively monitor, when, and at what frequency. 

Initial prioritization of the portions of the system on which to focus the DMSMS management effort can be 

based upon the following: 

Safety. A top priority for the scope and focus of a DMSMS management program is any 

subsystem containing a critical characteristic whose failure, malfunction, or absence could cause 

a catastrophic failure, loss, or serious damage resulting in an unsafe condition. Special attention 

should be paid to aircraft, missiles, rockets, and airborne systems, as well as to other systems 

that involve command, steerage, and propulsion of ships or land vehicles. Similar safety concerns 

on other systems should be identified by the program offices. 

Mission criticality. Another top priority for the scope and focus of a DMSMS management 

program is any system—whether a primary mission system or an auxiliary or supporting 

system—whose operational effectiveness and operational suitability are essential to successful 

completion of the mission or to aggregate residual combat capability. Such systems are critical, 

54
SD-22 – January 2016 

because if the system fails, the mission likely will not be completed, especially if there is a known 

single point of failure or a significant impact on NHAs. 

DMSMS-related costs. Any subsystem experiencing or expected to experience frequent or 

expensive DMSMS-related issues should be monitored. Considerations for identifying 

subsystems under this criterion, before actual data are available, include unique fit or materials, 

closed architecture, modified COTS assemblies, high electronics content, high redesign costs, 

single source, low reliability, or hard-to-support software. 

Existing problems/historically troublesome. If DMSMS management is already underway, 

program management may already have a sense of those subsystems that cause the most 

headaches. If a program is just starting, program management might still be able to look to 

predecessor platforms to identify subsystems that have consistently proven to be trouble spots. 

Data to review in these instances include the reliability (e.g., low mean-time-between-failure rates 

or high mean-time-to-repair rates) of the assemblies, software, and other items in the subsystem. 

Another set of subsystems of interest are those that are common across platforms and, therefore, 

could have a potentially large impact if they fail. 

Life-cycle phase. The system prioritization process may vary as a function of life-cycle phase:











o

o

o

For systems in design and production, actual data may not be available to understand 

where high costs or frequent DMSMS issues are occurring. There may be only some 

near-term indications of such areas based upon ongoing monitoring and surveillance. 

These areas are expanded as the system matures. It is especially important to identify 

DMSMS issues during design or production, because decisions made during those 

phases can significantly affect the system’s life cycle. Furthermore, when obsolete items 

are not eliminated from product designs, higher-risk distributors are more likely to be 

used to obtain items that are no longer in production. This adds to the risk of finding 

counterfeit parts in the DoD supply chain and, more important, in DoD weapon systems 

used by the warfighter. 

Over time, the sustainment strategy may evolve; consequently, the mix of organic and 

contractor roles may change. 

Once a subsystem has been fielded, there is a greater potential that an obsolescence 

impact on that subsystem could be felt directly by the warfighter in terms of readiness. 

This may be less of an issue if a program knows that it has sufficient spares availability. 

Sustainment strategy. A system’s sustainment strategy reflects the maintenance or support 

concept of operations for that system. Such strategies consider impacts on system capability 

requirements, responsiveness of the integrated supply chains across government and industry, 

maintenance of long-term competitive pressures on government and industry providers, and 

effective integration of system support that is transparent to the warfighter and provides total 

combat logistics capability. The DMT should be particularly concerned with these issues if the 

government is providing sustainment support. If a contractor is required to resolve DMSMS 

issues, then the DMT’s primary role is to oversee the contractor’s efforts.

Availability of technical data. Although a program may prefer to implement robust DMSMS 

management over all priority subsystems, the reality is that not all of the BOM/parts list data may 

be available to do so, particularly at the start-up of DMSMS management for a program. In such 

instances, programs will not be able to scrutinize priority subsystems until sufficient data become 

available. However, a program should not postpone or avoid pursuing the necessary data for 

known, more complex and troublesome subsystems. 

Each program will need to determine the factors of most importance to prioritize its subsystems for 

DMSMS monitoring and surveillance. Among the factors of interest to a program, not all will be of equal 

importance. To address this, a program might wish to develop a weighting scheme to help sort the 

system priorities for its monitoring and surveillance effort. A program that already is well underway, and 

for which historical data are available, could consider establishing a method that considers the likelihood 

and consequence of a particular subsystem being degraded due to obsolescence. 

55
SD-22 – January 2016 

4.2. Identify and Procure Monitoring and Surveillance Tools 

The DMSMS management program should identify and procure predictive obsolescence tools and 

associated data management tools needed to support DMSMS monitoring and surveillance. Predictive 

tools may be particularly useful for analyzing certain types of items, such as electronics; however, these 

tools have limited capability for other types of items, such as mechanical hardware or COTS assemblies. 

Most DMSMS predictive tools perform the same core functions of monitoring the availability of electronic 

items in the BOM and forecasting their obsolescence. Each tool has a set of loading criteria and formats, 

output report formats, and other information that can be ascertained from the loaded BOM. 

Most programs will not be in a situation in which they independently evaluate and purchase a license for 

using a predictive tool. More typically, either a parent organization will have bought a centralized 

subscription to one or more tools, or the program will choose a DMSMS management provider (e.g., its 

prime contractor or independent SME) that has its own set of tools. Tools, however, may be a selection 

factor for independent SME organizations and the program may need to obtain a license for its prime 

contractor or OEMs. 

In determining which predictive tools to use, a program should consider the following desirable attributes: 



































Manage accurate configurations. 

Enable real-time assessments of availability for items qualified for the system. 

Identify obsolescence issues and specific quantities per affected assembly. 

Identify after-market sources of supply. 

Create or generate timely alerts on production change notifications and PDNs. 

Enable real-time views of current item availability analysis. 

Provide highly accurate data. 

Provide flexible data input and query options. 

Allow comprehensive reporting options. 

Contain a large number of key items for the system (or be able to add them). 

Contain information about counterfeits and information assurance requirements. 

Rapidly develop obsolescence case sheets, providing streamlined and complete status of 

obsolete item issues when integrated with a DMSMS management system. 

Provide engineers with the data needed to evaluate and implement resolutions. 

Share notes and resolutions across all managed platforms and systems. 

Enhance productivity by minimizing the impact on engineering staffs, while rapidly providing 

critical data needed for decision making. 

Provide excellent customer service. 

Have a low cost. 

If a program decides to have its prime contractor or OEMs perform monitoring and surveillance using 

DMSMS tools, the government must have access to the data reported by those tools for two key reasons: 

(1) to allow the government sufficient visibility for effective oversight and (2) to enable it to readily 

assume DMSMS management responsibilities if DMSMS management roles change. 

A specific tool, alone, will not recognize all items in a BOM. A recent informal study of two predictive tools 

found that one of them successfully recognized only 71 percent of the items being researched by the 

56
SD-22 – January 2016 

team,44 and the other recognized only 72 percent of the items being researched. When comparing the 

availability reported by the two predictive tools, the study found that the tools disagreed regarding the 

obsolescence status of 4 percent of the items being researched. There are legitimate reasons for these 

statistics. In particular, different tools use different algorithms and philosophies in identifying and reporting 

obsolescence. Also, the electronics industry changes rapidly, and new items are added daily. 

Furthermore, update schedules for the predictive tools vary, sometimes resulting in discrepancies in item 

availability status between tools. Therefore, if funding allows, and if practicable, the program should use 

more than one predictive tool and, for items not tracked by predictive tools and for items that are 

particularly critical, should conduct manual research. Regardless of the tools used, engineering analysis 

and judgment remain key factors in identifying DMSMS issues. 

Beyond predictive obsolescence tools, BOM data management tools, configuration tools, logistics data 

collection tools, data storage and retrieval tools, and report generation tools are all needed for monitoring 

and surveillance. Selection criteria include reliability, user friendliness, cost, and usability by multiple 

programs. As discussed in Section 3, DMSMS management systems exist that include both proactive 

functions and data collection and management functions. 

Many tools can assist a program with monitoring and surveillance, as well as with other data 

management tasks. A list of tools to assist with monitoring and surveillance can be found in the DKSP. 

4.3. Collect and Prepare Item Data 

Once the focus and scope of the DMSMS management program have been determined by the 

prioritization of subsystems based upon mission criticality, operational safety, and so on, the data 

necessary to support item availability analysis and, ultimately, DMSMS impact assessment should be 

identified and collected. Indeed, program leadership should ensure that the data to support DMSMS 

management are obtained. Item data, including parts and software lists/BOMs and additional information 

obtained from market surveys, are used to analyze item availability, resulting in a list of system items that 

have immediate, or anticipated, near-term obsolescence issues. 

4.3.1. Item Data Collection 

4.3.1.1. Hierarchy of System Items 

To adequately and cost-effectively address obsolescence for a program, the DMT may have to monitor, 

assess, and resolve DMSMS issues at different and multiple levels within a system. Figure 10 illustrates 

the hierarchy of system items. As one moves from left to right across the figure, the system is 

decomposed into increasingly smaller items, from unit to assembly to component. For each of the items of 

the system, additional related terms are also provided. So, for example, when a program is referencing 

the component level, other terms often used to refer to this level of item are piece parts and device. 

Figure 8. Hierarchy of System Items 

 

44 The study reviewed all of the systems (ranging from missiles to aviation and in all phases) 

monitored by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center. On the 

basis of that review, the study calculated recognition rates for the two predictive tools used by the center. 

57
SD-22 – January 2016 

 

Notes: LRU = line replaceable unit, SRA = shop replaceable assembly, SRU = shop replaceable unit, and WRA = weapon 

replaceable assembly. 

4.3.1.2. Different Types of Item Data 

Different types of items are likely to be incorporated into the design of any system. Therefore, the DMT 

needs to be aware of how different types of data may need to be collected or even suggest different 

means of collecting and managing the data. The following subsections contain such information for both 

COTS and hardware–electronic and MaSME items and for software. 

4.3.1.2.1. Hardware–Electronic and MaSME Items 

For hardware–electronic and MaSME items–data, a parts list or BOM is an indispensable data resource 

for robust DMSMS management. Without a parts list or BOM, item availability analysis, impact 

assessment, and the continuous prediction of discontinuance by a DMSMS management program are 

impossible.45

A BOM identifies the materials, components, and assemblies used in making a unit. The list may be in a 

flat format or an indentured format. A flat BOM is a simple list of items, while an indentured BOM shows 

the relationships (generally in a top-down breakout format) of components to assemblies to units to the 

system. Figure 11 depicts the two formats. 

Figure 9. Comparison of Flat and Indentured BOMs 

45 This does not imply that the government must have a BOM. DMSMS can be managed by the prime 

contractor. See Appendix C. 

58
SD-22 – January 2016 



















Because it provides a bigger picture for identifying and weighing resolution options for an identified 

DMSMS issue, an indentured BOM format is preferred over a flat format. For example, when analyzing 

item availability, a flat BOM enables the identification of only the number of obsolete items within the unit; 

it would not provide any indication of whether some of the items are on the same assembly. Not knowing 

the effect of the identified, immediate, and predicted obsolescence issues on the system’s item hierarchy 

limits resolution options. In some cases, it may be more cost-effective to perform a minor redesign of an 

assembly, rather than undertaking life-of-need buys of multiple components within that assembly. An 

indentured BOM enables the program to more readily visualize the relationships of identified 

obsolescence issues within the system and to use this information to inform the identification and 

determination of potential resolution options. 

In addition to the configuration (indenture) information conveyed through an indentured parts list or BOM, 

useful item data pertaining to the components, assemblies, and units of the program’s system include the 

following: 

OEM-approved alternatives 

OEM technical manuals 

OEM DMSMS mitigation efforts underway 

OCM part number 

Sources of active manufacturing 

Actual or projected EOL 

Function (active versus passive, complexity) 

Type (custom, hybrid, proprietary) 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS)/lead-free (Pb-free) information 

59
SD-22 – January 2016 

 F3 details. 

For MaSME items, listed on a BOM, the items of interest may be reduced after production is completed 

by using a Provisioning Master Record (PMR), which includes only those items that are purchased by the 

DoD supply system. PMRs also provide additional information that can be used to further reduce the 

number of items to monitor, as described under “4.3.2. Item Data Preparation.”

One of the DMT’s first tasks is to obtain the BOMs (probably from the prime contractor via flow-down 

arrangements through the supply chain) for the system. The best situation is one in which the government 

has established a contractual requirement for the BOMs (and for notional BOMs or parts lists during 

design).46 Contractual language, including data rights issues, is important to establish up front between 

the program office and prime contractor. Prime contractors often have to negotiate with OEMs for access 

to their BOMs, so it is not valid to assume that a prime contractor will automatically be able to make these 

available to the program office. When a contractual requirement is not in place, OEMs are often reluctant 

to release BOMs, due to competition or proprietary issues. However, an OEM initially unwilling to provide 

a BOM does not mean that one cannot be obtained. Experience has proven that a DMSMS management 

program may be able to convince the OEM to share BOM data. Below are some examples of ways to 

pursue access to the BOM: 









The OEM may automatically assume that the program expects delivery of the entire technical 

data package (TDP). That is not correct. The program needs to make sure that it clearly explains 

what is being requested; data item description (DID) DI-PSSS-81656A47 outlines data fields that a 

program requests (see the DKSP). Ideally, the BOM should be in an editable electronic openstandards-based format. An OEM may not have an issue with delivering this information. 

If an OEM is still reluctant to share the BOM, the program may wish to determine if the OEM is 

more willing to share this information directly with the government. In some cases, subcontractors 

are wary of sharing their BOMs with the prime contractor but will more readily deliver them 

directly to the government or a government representative (with a nondisclosure agreement). 

In both of the above cases, the program should illustrate advantages to the OEM from sharing the 

requested data. Because BOM data enable the program to continually monitor for obsolescence 

issues, the program will share DMSMS discontinuation notices with the OEM and can assist with 

researching resolution options, so that both parties (government and OEM) benefit. 

If the program is still not able to convince the OEM to share the required data, then the program 

has several options to consider. It may be able to develop a BOM from available data such as 

drawings or technical documentation. With a limited BOM, the DMT can load a predictive tool, 

identify the status of items, and perform basic item availability analysis. As it gets better at 

managing DMSMS problems, the DMT will realize that any redesign or new system acquisition 

should include the BOM as a contract deliverable, along with the new components, assemblies, 

units, or systems. It may be prudent for a program to require the procurement of some types of 

BOM data on any new system acquisition. As an alternative to creating a BOM from available 

data, a program could also perform a physical control audit. 

 

46 To understand the data rights, see the original procurement contract and any follow-on contracts. 

The contracts usually contain specific detail on the data rights for items delivered as contained in DD250 

forms. Using product data for government purposes, such as monitoring integrated BOM part numbers for 

end-of-life warnings, and using product data for competitive reprocurement are significantly different. DoD 

should attain technical data rights commensurate with the sustainment strategies of the systems used in 

its global defense missions so that it can ensure they remain affordable and sustainable. For more 

information about data rights, refer to “Myths of Data Rights” in the Army Guide for the Preparation of a 

Program Product Data Management Strategy, August 2010. 

47 This DID will be found at http://www.assistdocs.com/search/search_basic.cfm. 

60
SD-22 – January 2016 









If the OEM requires a program to pay for the BOMs needed for robust DMSMS management, 

then the program should first determine whether the required data have not already been paid for 

and received through some other avenue (CM, production, provisioning, etc.). In some cases, the 

program may discover that the OEM is already proactively monitoring the BOM for DMSMS 

issues. In light of this information and due to funding constraints, a program may choose to leave 

DMSMS management to the OEM, rather than acquiring and loading the BOMs into its own 

predictive tool. However, if a program does decide to do this, it must maintain sufficient oversight 

of the OEM’s DMSMS management efforts. This might entail the program requiring the regular 

delivery of item availability analysis for the system or of immediate alerts when a DMSMS issue is 

identified. Because no DMSMS predictive tool is 100 percent accurate, a program may still wish 

to acquire its own tools and load its own BOMs to minimize the risk of missing a DMSMS issue 

that could significantly affect the system. 

The DMT can manage the units within the system like a COTS item. Using COTS items within a 

system design has several benefits, including reducing or eliminating the risks typical of customdeveloped systems. However, COTS items present a unique set of challenges for the 

management of DMSMS issues.48 These challenges are due, at least in part, to the fact that 

these items are produced for the commercial market. For example, the rapid turnover of COTS 

items creates unique obsolescence-induced supportability issues for military systems, because 

OEMs are likely to replace or stop producing COTS items long before the life cycle of a system is 

complete. 

DMSMS management concerns about the incorporation of COTS items in a system design are 

inevitable. Avoiding DMSMS issues due to the introduction of COTS items in a system design 

calls for effective relationships among all program participants: the COTS supplier, the system 

developer and integrator, the DMT, and the buyer (for example, the item manager). The DMT 

must remember that all COTS items are subject to DMSMS issues, but some are prone to 

specific problems. For example, software, central processing units, memory chips, and disks 

change frequently. These specific COTS classes aside, a degree of obsolescence is always in 

place in the form of planned minor upgrades or refreshes, typically at the 2- and 4-year marks. 

Beyond that, a major upgrade—a next generation—should be expected at some time in the 

future. 

Automated DMSMS predictive tools typically do not comprehensively monitor COTS and 

mechanical items for obsolescence. Further, BOMs for COTS items are not usually readily 

available49 and may not be cost-effective to obtain if available. However, for a COTS-intensive 

system, a program may want to investigate whether BOMs are readily available and, if so, 

develop the cooperative arrangements necessary to ensure delivery of those COTS BOMs, if 

cost-effective. 

4.3.1.2.2. Software 

Software items within a system may not always be automatically included in an indentured BOM. For this 

reason, a program may need to request (and then document via contract) that a list of software items be 

obtainable as part of a BOM. CM documents are another potential source for identifying the software in a 

system. For a third source, software is often a part of the software verification document. A fourth source 

is a data rights disclosure letter if it is a requirement on the contract. This letter lists all areas for which the 

government does not have full data rights, including commercial software applications and contractor 

proprietary software. A final source is a software licensing management group, if one exists. The software 

version document is a fifth possibility. 

Just as an indentured BOM shows hierarchical interrelationships among items, software 

interdependencies should also be captured. For each listed software element, the software and hardware 

 

48 SAE EIA-933, “Standard for Preparing a COTS Assembly Management Plan,” includes 

requirements for obsolescence management. 

49 In contrast, BOMs may be available for nondevelopmental items designed for the government. 

61
SD-22 – January 2016 

that depend on it and the software and hardware upon which it is dependent should both be identified. 

Software interdependencies may not be hierarchical; there can be cross-system relationships. An 

understanding of these relationships will not be found in a BOM; it is best achieved through discussions 

with systems engineers and/or software developers or may be identified in interface control documents. 

Consideration should be given to modifying the DMSMS DID or creating a new one for software. 

4.3.2. Item Data Preparation 

By this point, the program has identified and collected all relevant item data as well as selected and 

procured the appropriate DMSMS predictive tools. Before loading the parts lists/BOMs into the tools, the 

program should take several final steps to prepare the item data for recurring analysis of item availability. 

First, the parts lists/BOMs should be reviewed to identify the items on which the program’s DMSMS 

monitoring and surveillance activity will focus. This is a second prioritization filter—the first being the 

prioritization of subsystems on which to focus the DMSMS management effort (see Section 4.1)—that 

considers the criticality and safety as well as the vulnerability of particular items within the system design. 





Because of rapid technology changes, robust DMSMS management and proactive monitoring for 

electronic items has generally been the primary focus of DoD’s DMSMS management guidance 

and effort. Being the center of attention, however, does not necessarily equate to adequate 

funding. Programs often struggle to obtain and maintain budgets for proactive DMSMS 

management in this area. 

Narrowly targeting the items to monitor can have a large impact on the cost of a program’s 

DMSMS management effort, thereby focusing attention on the higher-risk items. For a program 

dealing with a larger number of items, applying this second prioritization filter could eliminate 

large portions of the BOM from the monitoring requirement. Culling out lower-vulnerability items 

from a program’s DMSMS monitoring effort may be less critical if the program is not dealing with 

a large number of items. 

4.3.2.1. Hardware–Electronic and MaSME Items 

Parts lists and BOMs may contain any number of items (such as fasteners) that do not need to be 

analyzed with a predictive tool because of the availability of so many alternatives. As described in the 

strategic underpinnings section (Section 3.1), to make more effective use of limited resources, programs 

should adopt a risk-based approach to proactive monitoring. For items that are listed on parts lists and 

BOMs, this section contains more details on the application of the first two strategic determinations—

applying heuristics based on life-cycle estimates and further analysis of uncategorized items—associated 

with determining which items to monitor. 

The first determination involves applying heuristics based on life-cycle estimates. In some instances, a 

supply system health analysis is performed to offer up a broad-based supportability picture and identify 

low-, medium-, and high-risk candidates from a support perspective. The results of applying the first 

determination to hardware–electronic and MaSME items listed on parts lists/BOMs are the following three 

categories of items: 

 Items to definitely monitor. These items include certain item classes known to have a high 

propensity for obsolescence issues. These item types include electronic COTS assemblies (e.g., 

networking gear, computers), active components, radiofrequency components, programmables, 

memory, microprocessors, ASICs, hybrids, and custom electronic assemblies. Assemblies50 that 

contain sole-source items that are in low demand also should be proactively monitored. Custom 

passive items are also prime candidates for monitoring. In addition, if a design contains materials 

with chemical properties that are a function of the design, are sole source, and/or are otherwise 

potentially threatening to the environment, these materials should be monitored. All 

electromechanical items should also be included in a program’s monitoring efforts. This subset of 

item types generally introduces high risk to a program if the program chooses not to monitor 

them. 

 

50 Obsolescence of complex assemblies is often caused by obsolescence of their critical items. 

62
SD-22 – January 2016 



















Items not to monitor. There are two types of items not to monitor: 

o

o

Items where no further action is required. This subset of item types includes 

standard/common industrial items, such as mechanical components, connectors, cabling, 

and consumables, that typically do not present a significant risk, because most of these 

items are easily and quickly replaced when they become obsolete. Generally, these items 

can be eliminated from monitoring. Some circumstances, however, warrant a DMT’s 

monitoring of these types of items. For example, some items may have something unique 

about their operating environment, may be identified by the DMT as important, or may 

require extensive requalification. The DMSMS SME and engineering activity 

representative should understand the associated risk before choosing not to monitor such 

items and should revalidate that decision periodically. 

Items where preparations should be taken. Custom-fabricated items (such as fenders or 

castings) that will no longer be produced after final delivery also should not be monitored 

for DMSMS issues; however, logistics managers and PMs should ensure that enough of 

these items are acquired for system sustainment through system disposition. As a 

safeguard, the program should obtain sufficient documentation to enable the 

reacquisition of custom-fabricated items in case of future need, through new acquisition 

contracts. 

Items for which not enough is known to determine the need for monitoring. The final category of 

items is uncategorized items, because not enough information is known to determine whether the 

program should monitor these items. 

With regard to this final group of uncategorized items, electronic and MaSME items, a program 

has three options from which to choose: 

Monitor all of these items. This is a low risk for being caught off guard with an obsolescence 

issue, high-monitoring cost approach. 

Do not monitor any of these items. This is a high risk for being caught off guard with an 

obsolescence issue, low-monitoring cost approach. 

Conduct further analyses to determine which items to monitor. This approach optimizes the risk 

associated with being caught off guard with an obsolescence issue and monitoring cost. 

From a risk-based and resource-constrained perspective, the latter option should only lead to 

monitoring those uncategorized items where the negative effects of a reactive approach are both 

most likely and most severe. The decision to pursue a reactive approach to DMSMS monitoring 

implies that the program will experience no severe ill effects from waiting until an item cannot be 

obtained before seeking a resolution. A reactive approach should be sufficient unless significant 

risks are present. 

In applying the second determination, a program performs additional analysis to determine which 

of the items from the “uncategorized” list to proactively monitor. Three risk categories should be 

used to determine where a proactive approach should be taken for a particular material or item. 

These risk categories are as follows: 

Item criticality. This risk category addresses the degree to which an item (whether or not it is an 

assembly or a component used to repair an assembly) is critical to the functionality of the system 

and ultimately the operational readiness of the unit employing that system. Quantitative and 

qualitative considerations for this risk category include the following: 

o Critical safety item 

63
SD-22 – January 2016 

o

o

o

o

Mission criticality51

Item essentiality code 

High demand (perhaps in top 10%) 

High cost. 









The first three considerations are direct indicators of criticality. Obviously items that are missioncritical or critical safety items meet the high criticality criterion. While critical safety items may be 

clearly identified, mission-criticality items are sometimes more ambiguous. The item essentiality 

code is an attempt to assist in classifying these items, but these data are not always accurate. 

There also should be a high correlation between high-cost and/or high-demand items and 

criticality. These considerations, depending on the system, can therefore serve as factors in their 

own right or in combination as a reasonable proxy for mission criticality when no other data are 

available. 

Supply chain vulnerability. This risk category represents a key difference between electronic 

items and MaSME items. In the former case, the item often becomes obsolete because of 

technology changes. For the latter, obsolescence is usually related to a source going out of 

business or changing its product line. Quantitative and qualitative considerations for this risk 

category include the following: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Source related (e.g., no identified source, sole source, or only foreign sources) 

Financial health of the supplier (e.g., as measured by Dunn and Bradstreet) 

Persistent backorders (perhaps as indicated by an increasing number of backorders for 

at least 8 consecutive months) 

Long customer wait times (perhaps top 10%) 

Recent substantial price increase 

Time since last order (perhaps if more than 3 years) 

Low demand 

Life cycle of the items. 

The first three considerations examine the supply chain directly. A supply chain is potentially 

vulnerable if there is no source, just one source, or only foreign sources identified. Even if there 

are multiple sources, all unhealthy suppliers are a situation of concern. In some high risk 

situations, it may be useful to conduct a specific financial analysis on a particular supplier, since 

sources such as Dunn and Bradstreet are not always current. Similarly, long customer wait times, 

especially when there are persistent backorders are indicators of a potential problem. 

The fourth and fifth considerations not only exacerbate the risk further, but also indicate other less 

obvious supply chain vulnerabilities and scarcities. Long wait times may be indicative of more 

serious problems. Similarly, a sudden price increase may imply something is changing in the 

supply chain that will have an effect on availability. Either of these factors may represent an early 

warning of future problems. 

 

51 For the Army, the Rand Corporation has developed a readiness indicator that could contribute to 

this factor. The Rand Readiness Indicator uses an Army deadline report that shows the number of times a 

part has appeared in that report and the total number of days that the part was in the report. Eric Peltz, et 

al., “Diagnosing the Army’s Equipment Readiness: The Equipment Downtime Analyzer,” Santa Monica, 

CA: Rand, Arroyo Center, 2002, 

46–48. 

64
SD-22 – January 2016 













If a long time has passed since the last order, there may be substantial uncertainty about supply 

chain vulnerability. A source may make a financial decision that it is not profitable to keep 

producing an item, if the demand signal for that item is low. Finally, if the item has a short 

technological life cycle, its supply chain is more vulnerable. 

Time to implement a resolution. The risk category addresses how long it will take to implement a 

resolution to a DMSMS issue for an item or material in comparison to the stocks that the program 

has on hand. If there is more than enough stock on hand and the time to implement is short, then 

the risk to the program would be viewed as lower; however, if there is a long lead time to 

implement a resolution and the stocks on hand are not sufficient, then this indicates high risk. 

Quantitative and qualitative considerations for this risk category include the following: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

TDP availability for structural, mechanical, and electrical items or electronic items (e.g., 

not available or limited data) or availability of the material specification for an engineered 

material52 (knowledge of material composition will shorten cycle time) 

Source controlled 

Manufacturing difficulty

Long lead time to requalify 

Manufacturing cycle time 

Availability of tooling and test equipment 

Cost to implement a resolution 

Defense unique. 

If technical data are not available, reverse engineering will be required. This takes a long time 

and adds significantly to the risk. Reverse engineering of a material or a structural, mechanical, 

and electrical item or electronic item is almost always feasible. Many items can be reverse 

engineered in 3 to 6 months, but some take much longer. Also, source-controlled items (e.g., 

items where the allowable or qualified sources are listed on the drawing) typically involve a longer 

time to implement a resolution. 

Measuring manufacturing difficulty is subjective. Factors such as the need for specialized skill 

and high capital equipment costs are indicators of potential manufacturing difficulties for all items. 

Sometimes this is a reason for a source-controlled designation. For structural, mechanical, and 

electrical items and electronic items, manufacturing difficulty may be associated with unique 

manufacturing processes and/or demanding requirements, such as extreme tolerances. For 

materials manufacturing, difficulties may be associated with the presence of hazardous materials 

or processes, which require special handling; the use of other exotic materials that are not 

commercially available and with little demand outside this application; demanding requirements 

(e.g., long shelf life, compatibility with other materials, replacement materials must be the same 

material, performance outside of normal operating environment); and material that cannot be 

reliably recycled for use in another form. 

Other measures of the time to implement axis include a long lead time for requalification, 

manufacturing cycle time, and/or the lack of tooling or test equipment. For example, shipboard 

testing may be proposed, which requires scheduling ship availability. The cost to implement a 

resolution can be an indicator of the time required. Finally, resolutions for defense unique items 

are likely to require more time to implement. 

Figure 12 depicts a risk cube illustrating where proactive monitoring of uncategorized items is 

important. Using this risk cube, if an item is not mission or safety critical, then there will be little 

 

52 An engineered material is designed to perform a specific function and is composed of multiple raw 

materials. 

65
SD-22 – January 2016 

operational impact from a DMSMS issue. Resolutions for such items can be developed and 

implemented without time sensitivity. If the item is critical, but the supply chain is robust, the 

likelihood of a DMSMS issue is also small, because other suppliers should be able to satisfy 

demands. Even if the supply chain is not healthy for a critical item, proactive monitoring is only 

needed when the time to implement a resolution exceeds the length of time covered by the onhand inventory for that item. A best practice is that a program should only expend resources to 

proactively monitor those previously uncategorized items that are high risk across all three risk 

categories (in other words, red/red/red). 

Figure 12. Risk Cube for Determining Where Proactive Monitoring of Previously “Uncategorized” 

Items Is Important 

 Once a program has determined which of the above considerations within the three risk 

categories to use, a best practice is to categorize the items that were previously uncategorized 

based on the application of heuristic algorithms. These items should be evaluated based upon 

those considerations suitable for evaluation through automated databases. Each consideration 

should also be assigned a weight. For all items being evaluated, the weights of all considerations 

should be summed and the items above a predetermined cut-off point should be monitored, while 

those below that cut-off point should not. Both the weights assigned to the considerations and the 

cut-off point should be determined by the program, based on its unique needs. 

66
SD-22 – January 2016 





Regardless of what level of risk analysis is conducted, a subject matter expert could adjust the 

classifications, including the “do not monitor” items. This evaluation will take into account risk 

cube considerations that could not be adequately measured by automated databases, if 

applicable. There may also be some known vulnerabilities. For example, the technical members 

of the DMT may be aware of items that are known to be a problem and items with pending 

environmental or safety regulations that may limit their availability and use in any area of the 

world where the system operates. As a bottom line, the DMSMS SME and engineering activity 

representative should understand the associated risk before choosing not to monitor any such 

items and should revalidate that decision periodically. 

The entire process described in this section is summarized in Figure 13. 

Figure 13. Summary Illustration of Risk-Based Approach for Determining Which Items 

and Materials on the BOM to Monitor 





The DMT should have an obsolescence management strategy for every item. The program 

should carry forward the “definitely monitor” and “uncategorized” items that have been 

determined to be high risk across all three risk categories for availability analysis. The strategy for 

the “not to monitor” items is to find an alternative when they become obsolete, because ample 

replacements are available commercially, or to make the necessary preparations should a 

resolution be required down the road. 

Once a program has categorized and prioritized the items on its BOMs, the data for these items 

can be loaded into the program’s predictive tools where appropriate. 

4.3.2.2. Software 

As part of this second layer of prioritization, a program should also use a risk-based approach to 

determining where proactive monitoring for software obsolescence makes sense. Table 6 combines the 

67
SD-22 – January 2016 

most common types of program-specific software encountered (rows)53 and the software obsolescence 

mechanisms (columns) identified in Figure 2. Taking a risk-based approach on what to monitor, however, 

extends beyond merely what is captured in Table 6. For example, similar to parts, higher priority should 

be given to software that has a critical impact on the ability of the system to perform its missions. Other 

risk-based monitoring considerations for software include effect on safety, information assurance, the 

complexity of interdependence with hardware and other software, and the frequency of updates. A 

primary driver of obsolescence is the customization of defense system software for specific COTS 

operating system, middleware, and application software. 

Table 6. Framework for Determining the Applicability 

of Proactive Software Obsolescence Management

Type of software affected 

Software obsolescence mechanisms 

Lower order First order 

Hardware 

changes 

Software 

requirements 

changes 

Proactive 

software 

upgrades 

Diminished 

ability to use 

software 

COTS operating system, middleware, 

and application softwarea

Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Applicable 

Custom operating system, middleware, 

and application softwarea

Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Applicable 

Open source operating system, 

middleware, and application software 

Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Applicable 

Government off-the-shelf operating 

system, middleware, and application 

software 

Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Applicable 

COTS firmware Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Applicable 

Custom firmware Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary Not necessary 

a

 COTS and custom application software also include interface software that moves, translates, or displays data, for example, 

custom drivers for printers or middleware interfacing COTS and custom applications.

As the table shows, proactive monitoring in several specific instances is not necessary. Hardware 

changes are driven by refreshing hardware technology, a hardware resolution, or a hardware 

requirements change. Software obsolescence is a second-order effect as implementation of hardware 

resolution/refreshment/requirement changes must take any derivative software changes into account,54

leaving no additional implications for proactive software obsolescence management. The same argument 

can be used to eliminate the second and third columns. Implementation of a change in software 

requirements or technology refreshment would naturally include the consideration and resolution of any 

resulting software functional obsolescence. Again, there are no implications for proactive software 

obsolescence management. 

 Software configurations are controlled by freezing content at a version/revision level of detail after 

adequate testing has been conducted. Particularly with regard to software, once a decision is 

made on what to monitor, there should be a risk-based determination of which versions or 

 

53 The software used enterprise-wide affects or is affected by the program-specific obsolescence 

situation. Therefore, there are no proactive DMT implications beyond communication of second-order 

DMSMS issues to all stakeholders. 

54 The DMT interface with engineering is the most common way to understand the impact. 

68
SD-22 – January 2016 

revisions to track, because further refinements (lower-level revisions) may fix only minor errors 

and not affect functionality or major vulnerabilities. 

4.4. Analyze Item Availability 

When all of the items are analyzed for obsolescence (as determined via either predictive tool usage or 

vendor surveys), the magnitude of the program’s immediate and near-term DMSMS issues will begin to 

surface. These items’ availability status results represent a snapshot in time and, therefore, must be 

repeated throughout the life of the system, in response to the identification of new obsolescence notices, 

a vendor survey, or a regularly scheduled update to the predictive tools. If possible, a program should 

receive daily DMSMS notifications that pertain to the electronics in the program’s systems. Quarterly or 

annual alerts or vendor surveys may suffice for COTS items but may be too late for electronic items, 

especially if a program has only 30 days to make a life-of-need buy. Update frequency may also differ for 

different commodity types, based on the availability of information, the rapidity of the technology’s 

evolution, and the risk that the item or material poses to the system and mission. 

Analyzing item availability should focus on identifying the items in each of the following three categories 

for further assessment: 







Items that are no longer available and for which no alternatives are available55

Items for which discontinuation notices have been issued, but some are still available 

Items projected to be out of production in the near future (where the time horizon is specified by 

the program). 

The following three sections describe the three methods—predictive tools, vendor surveys, and PDNs—

that prompt a refresh of a program’s item availability status for hardware–electronic and MaSME items. 

The section after that discusses some special considerations for software. 

4.4.1. Predictive Tools 

Some items (especially electronic parts) are more readily analyzed using predictive tools. In contrast, 

most predictive tools do not cover MaSME items. Those items covered by predictive tools should, if at all 

possible, be examined by two predictive tools. If the tools disagree regarding the obsolescence status of 

an item, then additional manual research is needed to confirm whether or not the item has an immediate 

or near-term obsolescence issue. If the item does not present an immediate or near-term obsolescence 

issue, it does not need to be assessed for DMSMS impacts. Even if the predictive tools agree that an 

obsolescence issue exists with respect to a particular item, a manual check should be done to confirm 

that finding. 

Predictive tools may not provide an industry obsolescence status for some items. This may be due to an 

incorrect item number, a lack of identifying information, or the way the tool provider collects data. Also, 

the item may be from a manufacturer that the tool does not query. Some items may not be included in a 

tool’s database. Items with unknown availability must not lead to a false sense of security. Additional work 

is needed to determine their availability. It may be that data errors can simply be corrected to enable the 

predictive tools to forecast item availability. In other cases, manual research may be necessary. For 

example, the OCM, if known, should be contacted. Otherwise, inquiries should be made down the supply 

chain until the OCM can be identified and source control drawings can be accessed. If the item number is 

correct, another predictive tool may be used. Tool providers allow users to submit requests for items to be 

added to their library of monitored parts. Certain restrictions apply, but providers usually will add catalog 

 

55 The fact that a predictive tool indicates the existence of an alternative item does not guarantee that 

the item will work successfully in legacy systems. The conversion of original hard-copy drawings to digital 

drawings for legacy systems may make it difficult to know why a particular source’s item was chosen over 

another source’s item that appears to be similar or the same. The hard-copy drawings may have 

indicated a difference that was not captured digitally. Therefore, the DMT should check with the 

engineering authority before concluding that an impact assessment is not needed. 

69
SD-22 – January 2016 

item numbers at a subscriber’s request. Subscribers of these tools should take full advantage of this to 

reduce the amount of research required for future BOM monitoring and receipt of EOL notifications. 

During start-up, a program may face a substantial manual research effort to perform an initial cleanup of 

the data and to confirm the obsolescence-related findings generated by predictive tools. Scoping the 

types of items to be monitored based upon the application of a second prioritization filter (as described in 

Section 4.3.2) can assist a program in reducing the level of effort it will need to employ to clean up and 

manually research such unknowns and verify statuses. Later, once a program’s DMSMS management 

has entered a steady state, research will need to be conducted only when certain predetermined 

conditions occur (e.g., item status changes, an item has not been researched in a certain amount of time, 

changes in sources of alternate items, packaging changes, and periodic revisit of previous “no action 

required” items).

Predictive tools should be used throughout the life cycle. Early in design, they should be used on notional 

BOMs or preferred parts lists; both are good sources of items that are likely to be used in production. 

Early design for new systems is usually based on existing designs being developed by the OEM. The 

starting point is rarely a predominately blank technical drawing. 

4.4.2. Vendor Surveys 

Predictive tools may not be able to forecast the availability of some items (such as COTS assemblies and 

MaSME items). This will also be the case for materials such as alloys, epoxies, glues, tapes, cooling 

fluids, and adhesives. In these instances, the best way to analyze availability is through vendor surveys, 

phone calls, e-mails, and vendor websites. 

It is helpful to develop a vendor survey questionnaire to manually interact with COTS and hardware–

electronic and MaSME items manufacturers and knowledgeable material specialists, establish a database 

to capture and track the survey information, and determine the frequency to make contact for updates 

(again, prioritized based on criticality). Contacts for these surveys can be made through phone calls or email communication. A program should be mindful to conduct these surveys in the least burdensome 

manner possible in order to increase the likelihood of responses. Developing relationships with vendors 

often improves response time and willingness to participate. Some data can also be collected by 

reviewing manufacturers’ websites and other web research. This activity is particularly relevant to COTS 

items; manufacturers will often provide the status for the current item’s planned life cycle, especially when 

a next-generation version is intended. 

The following list provides some examples of vendor survey information and questions that a program 

can include in its vendor survey questionnaires for electronic items.56, 57, 58 The types of vendor survey 

questions suggested here for electronic items are generally applicable to MaSME items, as well; 

however, additional questions can be added to determine if someone other than the OEM is a likely 

candidate for providing future support for those items. 









Product name. 

Company name. 

Commercial and government entity code. 

Part number. 

 

56 Although more questions can be asked, the response rate is likely to be higher if the vendor survey 

is brief. Additional questions specific to different types of software are provided in Section 4.4.4. 

57 The answers to these questions and any follow-up questions should be provided to the appropriate 

technology road-mapping community in the program office. 

58 ANSI/VITA 53.0-2010, Commercial Technology Market Surveillance, is a reference to consider for 

additional questions to pose to a manufacturer (production start/end dates, end-of-support dates, failure, 

warranty, distributers, design changes, etc.). 

70
SD-22 – January 2016 





















Contact information. 

Is this item currently in production? If no, when did production end? If this product is no longer in 

production, can the government still purchase it? If yes, how many? When is the last date that the 

product can be purchased? If currently in production, when do you anticipate end of production? 

If you are not currently planning an end of production date for this product, please provide an 

estimate, based on similar products, past history, technology/item obsolescence, and so forth. 

(Keep in mind that this date is used for supply planning purposes only.) 

How long after the end of production will the government be able to have this product repaired? 

What’s the typical cost to repair this item?

Once production has been discontinued on the product, how much stock (in time) is typically 

available for sale? Are there considerations regarding shelf life (may be of particular interest for 

materials) of which the government should be aware? 

When this product is discontinued by your company, will you enter into an agreement with an 

after-market vendor so that customers can still buy the product? If yes (for this product or for 

other similar ones), please indicate the name of the vendor and give a point of contact. 

Is there a replacement or a planned upgrade to the product? Is the new item equivalent in terms 

of form, fit, and function? If so, what is the new product’s part number and cost? 

What are your technology update plans? What additional capability will the new technologies 

provide? 

What warranty does the product have? What is the warranty length and can the length or start 

time be adjusted to allow for integration and deployment? What extended warrantees are 

available, and at what cost? 

What is the list price of the product and its lead-time? 

A key step in developing an obsolescence management strategy for MaSME- and COTS-based systems 

is to compile a list of equipment and items in the system and group them by OCM (for mechanical items) 

and by OEM (for COTS items). With such a list, the DMT can make one phone call to each OCM and 

OEM to obtain obsolescence information about numerous items. Another helpful hint for a contractor that 

has been tasked by the government to survey vendors is to obtain a letter of permission to seek this 

information from the government and share it with the vendor. With this letter, vendors will likely be more 

cooperative in sharing information. The program (regardless of whether in-house or contracted out) 

should decide how often to contact the OCMs and OEMs; the appropriate frequency will depend on the 

criticality of each system, general life-cycle expectations, and other DMT-determined factors. 

It is a best practice to conduct vendor surveys twice per year for electronic items and software, due to the 

rapid pace of change characterized by the market. For MaSME items, market changes occur much 

slower. While this might support the argument that vendor surveys could be conducted less frequently for 

MaSME items, there are several arguments against such an approach. First, conducting different vendor 

surveys (potentially for the same vendor) at different frequencies could lead to extra work and 

unnecessary complications for a program’s DMSMS management effort. Second, the marginal cost of 

conducting more frequent vendor surveys would likely be small, assuming that there are not a very large 

number of contacts to be made. Finally, material obsolescence caused by changes to environmental 

regulations or geo-political disruptions in supply can happen very quickly. For this reason, it could be 

beneficial to be monitoring MaSME items on a more frequent basis. Ultimately, a program should make its 

own determination on the frequency of vendor surveys for non-electronic items, based on obsolescence 

risk, resources, and the criticality/safety associated with those items. 

4.4.3. Critical Materials Analysis 

It is important to be aware that under some circumstances, the above described vendor survey and 

research approach may not be sufficient. This could be the case if and when the suppliers of the items 

listed on the BOM are unaware of issues associated with materials within their items’ supply chains. It is 

because of these instances that the importance of the program’s third strategic decision from the strategic 

71
SD-22 – January 2016 

underpinnings section (Section 3.1) is highlighted. This third determination reflects the program’s 

determination of whether to investigate critical materials in the supply chain (those not identified in a 

BOM) or in a manufacturing process. 

A critical material could be hazardous, exotic, or otherwise be supply constrained. Such a material can 

either be embedded within an item that is listed on a BOM or required as part of the manufacturing of an 

item on a BOM. The incorporation of critical materials into a system will usually be done at a low level in 

the supply chain—a level that is below an item being surveyed or statused by a predictive tool and from a 

company that may not even know that its product is destined for a DoD system. Potential changes and 

disruptions at the lower-tier material level may not be immediately apparent and understood when an item 

is statused (especially for low-demand items) and, consequently, potential DMSMS concerns may not be 

identified early enough to resolve in a timely or cost-effective manner. For example, a buyout of a key 

critical material producer may lead to a major impact if there are plans to consolidate production lines. 

Given examples such as this, knowing whether there are critical materials present in or used in the 

manufacturing process of a MaSME item in the BOM will improve the analysis of availability of that item or 

material. The same is true for electronic items analyzed through predictive tools or other vendor surveys. 

Programs often do not know which critical materials are in their supply chains. Only minimal information 

can be learned about imbedded critical materials from TDPs, material safety data sheets, and an item’s 

technical characteristics. Even if the critical materials in one’s supply chain were known, in nearly all 

cases, issues with these critical materials will affect multiple programs and systems. It would therefore be 

inefficient if every program independently conducted research to identify obsolescence concerns for 

critical materials in its own supply chain and then determined how to mitigate any issues that may be 

discovered from its own perspective. Such efforts are best accomplished on a centralized basis in 

coordination with all other stakeholders. 

Programs should devote resources to identify material issues in lower-tier suppliers based on their 

perceived risk. First, a program can identify the set of lower-tier critical materials with which it is 

concerned; these would be the critical materials that are anticipated to have the greatest potential impact, 

if there should be an issue obtaining or being able to use a given material. Second, a program can strive 

to better understand the extent to which issues associated with the lower-tier critical materials in the 

supply chain may impact monitored item availability. 

With regard to identifying the lower-tier critical materials with which to be concerned, a program has two 

options: (1) create a master list of all critical materials or (2) create a targeted list of critical materials for 

which the availability of that material can be anticipated to be uncertain because of pending regulatory 

change or other potential supply disruption. In selecting an approach, a program should keep in mind that 

hazardous materials (which often represent a large fraction of all critical materials) may fall into one of 

three categories: (1) their use is prohibited, (2) their use is restricted, or (3) their use is otherwise tracked. 

Regardless of which hazardous material category applies, a predictive tool or a vendor survey will 

accurately capture the obsolescence risk status of an item on a BOM that uses a hazardous material, as 

long as there have been no recent changes in the categorization of that hazardous material within that 

item. For example, if the material is prohibited and has been for a period of time, the impact of that 

material on the items that it is in will already likely be known and those items will most likely be obsolete. 

In other words, the status of the item will already reflect its hazardous material’s known categorization. If 

the material is also known to be restricted or tracked, supply chain availability will be understood; there 

may or may not be DMSMS concerns. Only when the material’s category has recently changed or there is 

a strong likelihood of a change in the near future would there be a need to conduct further research to 

ensure that the end item status accurately accounts for these risks. 

Consequently, it is sufficient for most programs to create a list of hazardous materials where the 

availability of that material can be anticipated to be uncertain, where uncertainty does not imply that the 

material should not be used. A targeted list of hazardous materials should be based on an understanding 

of and remaining up-to-date on the latest regarding the following: 

 Uncertainties associated with environmental restrictions pertaining to materials. The Chemical 

and Material Risk Management Program led by DoD’s Environment, Safety, and Occupational 

Health office scans a variety of sources to identify emerging contaminants—chemicals or 

72
SD-22 – January 2016 

materials that either lack human health standards or have an evolving science and regulatory 

status. When a potential emerging contaminant is first discovered, a risk alert is issued and a 

screening report is developed to inform a decision on whether that contaminant should be placed 

on a watch list where a more detailed (phase I) qualitative assessment will be conducted. Based 

on a phase I assessment, the contaminant is place on an actions list, if it is determined that 

significant DoD impacts are probable. Inclusion on the actions list signals that an even more 

detailed (phase II) quantitative assessment will be conducted on the contaminant in order to 

identify enterprise-wide risk management actions. The materials identified on these action and 

watch lists can be found at the following link: https://www.usarmy.mil/suite/page/618395.59

Material vulnerability uncertainties associated with the department’s office defense planning 

scenarios. DLA’s Strategic Materials Office maintains a Strategic and Critical Materials (SCM) list, 

which contains such material vulnerabilities. The SCM list is compiled from nominations by DoD 

components, other parts of the executive branch, Congress, subject matter experts, and other 

interested parties. Criteria for nomination include evidence of “weak links” in important material 

supply chains for defense and/or critical civilian applications. The SCM list is used as the basis for 

studies to recommend possible materials for purchase by the National Defense Stockpile. The 

Strategic Materials Office produces a report on these studies every 2 years. The studies show 

that not every entry on the SCM list is a potential shortfall. A shortfall does not imply a peacetime 

shortage—it only implies a possible shortage associated with DoD reconstituting its losses of that 

material due to the execution of a planning scenario. Therefore, from a DMSMS perspective, 

materials of interest could be limited to new additions to DLA’s identified shortfalls. It is, however, 

possible that there has been a change associated with a material that has already been on the 

shortfall list. A careful reading should provide some insight into the consistencies and divergence 

between consecutive years’ reports. It may, however, be imprudent to include all shortfalls. 

Information on the SCM list and shortfalls is maintained on the DMSMS Knowledge Sharing 

Portal.60



While it will likely be sufficient for most programs to create a targeted list, based on the sources described 

above, some programs may still judge that all critical materials are of concern. In this case, there are 

several sources of data that can be used to support this effort: 





The 2013 National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 411-1, Hazardous Material Target List (HMTL). 

The HMTL has been developed to support and enhance the management of risks associated with 

the use of hazardous materials in products and services consistent with NAS 411, Hazardous 

Materials Management Program, and MIL-STD 882E, Department of Defense Standard Practice: 

System Safety, in which a Hazardous Materials Management Plan is described as a management 

task. The HMTL includes prohibited and restricted materials. A consolidated, tracked materials list 

is under development. NAS 411-1 may be purchased online from the Aerospace Industry 

Association. 

DLA’s Strategic and Critical Materials (SCM) List. As described above, DLA’s Strategic Materials 

Office maintains an SCM list. This office’s website (http://www.strategicmaterials. 

dla.mil/Materials/Pages/default.aspx) lists materials; however, the latest Strategic and Critical 

Materials Report on Stockpile Requirements contains a list of materials that DLA’s Strategic and 

 

59 This is an Army Knowledge Online (AKO) site, which requires an AKO account to access. 

60 The DKSP is supported by the Defense Standardization Program Office (https://www. dsp.dla.mil) 

and is currently located within the DAU Acquisition Community Connection website (https://acc.dau.mil). 

More information on the DKSP may also be found in “Appendix H. DMSMS Knowledge Sharing Portal” of 

this document. 

73
SD-22 – January 2016 

Critical Materials Office has recently studied. Of note, the Strategic and Critical Materials 2015 

Report on Stockpile Requirements covers the study of 92 materials.61

Aerospace Defense Declarable Substance List (ADDSL). The International Aerospace 

Environmental Group (IAEG), which was formed to address the complexity and variability of 

environmental requirements in terms of their impact on the aerospace industry, is conducting a 

material declaration pilot to standardize reporting of chemical substances of interest. The ADDSL 

has been developed as part of the effort and addresses three types of substances: 



o

o

o

Substances that are either prohibited from use or have restricted uses in aerospace and 

defense products based upon “in-force” regulations

Substances where the disclosure of their presence in aerospace and defense products is 

required by “in-force” regulations

Substances that are regulated and have the potential to be banned or restricted or to 

require disclosure. 







This list can be found at the IAEG Supplier Portal’s “IAEG Aerospace and Defence Declarable 

Substances List (AD-DSL)” page (www.iaeg.com/workgroups/wg1/addsl/). This web page 

includes further links to the AD-DSL in both PDF and Excel formats. 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). The European 

Union’s REACH regulation controls uses and imposes reporting requirements for certain 

hazardous substances in Europe. Regulated substances can be found at the following link: 

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/index_en.htm. 

Restriction of Hazardous Substances. European and various other countries have issued RoHS 

regulations that limit the material content of electronic and electrical equipment. Regulated 

substances can be found at the following link: http://www.rohsguide.com/. 

Regardless of which approach is taken to compile a list of lower-tier critical materials of concern, DMSMS 

stakeholders should have an opportunity to contribute. Anyone on the DMT, including material and 

environmental engineers in the program office, may become aware of a potential material-related supply 

chain issue. Other potential sources include component organizations with material SMEs and/or 

organizations that conduct industrial base analyses. 

A program’s list of critical materials of concern may be shortened over time as a function of what the DMT 

learns about whether these critical materials are on the program’s system or not. Consequently, there will 

typically be three classes of materials on a program’s list of critical materials of concern: 







Those materials that are known to be on the system 

Those suspected to be on the system 

Those where their presence on the system remains unknown (this is likely to be the most 

prevalent class, particularly at the beginning of a program’s DMSMS management effort). 

Figure 14 illustrates the first step of a proactive approach for issue identification for critical materials in the 

lower tier of the supply chain. This first step focuses on selecting those materials that will serve as the 

critical materials of concern for the program. 

Figure 14. Select the Critical Materials of Concern for the Program 

 

61 These materials are listed on pages 2–4 of Appendix 2 of this report. The report is available by 

request through DLA’s Strategic and Critical Materials Office. A copy may also be found via the 

Homeland Security Digital Library at the following link: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=764766. 

74
SD-22 – January 2016 



 

For items in the BOM, robust DMSMS management seeks to be proactive in problem identification to 

discover potential issues well before they materialize. This maximizes the time available to implement a 

resolution and thereby both increases the likelihood of finding an inexpensive resolution and minimizes 

any ill effects on schedule and readiness. From this perspective, once a program has identified the critical 

materials of interest, the next set of activities should follow a risk-based, proactive problem identification 

path to highlight “the unknown unknowns” of critical materials’ impact on item availability.

A typical proactive approach using predictive tools and vendor surveys and research would not normally 

be used to better understand the extent to which critical materials issues in the supply chain may impact 

monitored item availability. Such an approach to problem identification is very labor intensive and the data 

do not indicate that the DMSMS risks and potential impacts are severe enough to justify the investment 

needed to be proactive in that way.62 Even if the government DMT were able to identify and contact 

lower-tier vendors, these contacts may not generate a complete response as the government will be 

seeking proprietary information that the company is unlikely to share unless it is in the company’s best 

interest to do so (e.g., the company wants government help to solve the problem). 

In the absence of any exacerbating circumstances indicating high risk, the most cost-effective DMT 

approach for risk-based, proactive problem identification for lower-tier critical materials (and materials 

used in manufacturing processes) is to encourage and engage in communications among key critical 

material stakeholders to share tacit knowledge on the subject.63 Considerations regarding how these 

types of communications can be fostered include the following: 

Establishing an agenda item for critical material supply chain issues for every DMT meeting. This 

will engage the prime contractor and any OEMs on the DMT. These DMT members may be 

aware of some critical materials in the supply chain, as well as potential issues with these 

materials because of any chemical profiling they are performing on their products. Such chemical 

profiling may be due to regulations or because it has been determined important for them to do 

62 This may change in the future if a greater number of substances become subject to environmental 

restrictions. 

63 A more proactive approach is to include a provision in contracts to collect data on any material of 

interest in the supply chain. This is a more costly approach and could be integrated with potential 

PESHE-related efforts. See Appendix C. 

75
SD-22 – January 2016 

this from a business perspective (e.g., sales may otherwise be affected). Furthermore, primes 

and OEMs have the most detailed engineering understanding of the items on the system. 

Therefore, they will play an important role in determining a resolution, should that be necessary. 

A DMT agenda item will also engage the organic depots involved in sustainment. Although the 

depots may not normally have a representative on the DMT (Section 3.3.1 lists them as ad-hoc 

members), someone on the DMT will be in the position to communicate with them. This is an 

important avenue of communication because there is a supply chain associated with depot 

activities and, consequently, the depots may be aware of the presence of critical materials in the 

system and critical materials issues analogous to those known by the primes and OEMs. Depots 

may even be in a position to query their supply chains about issues. 

Engaging with other stakeholders in preparation for a DMT discussion. Other stakeholders to 

engage include the following: 



o

o

o

o

o

o

o

DLA’s Strategic and Critical Materials Office. This office can be contacted through its 

website (https://www.strategicmaterials.dla.mil/Pages/default.aspx).

The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy Office. 

This office has three functions that are applicable to materials. First, its manufacturing 

technology (ManTech) program anticipates and closes gaps in manufacturing capabilities 

for affordable, timely, and low risk development, production, and sustainment of defense 

systems. Second, its Title III office ensures that industrial base capabilities meet current 

and future national security needs. Finally, its assessments office gathers industrial base 

data, maps supplier relationships, and evaluates capabilities to deliver systems and 

services. There is a material sector lead position in the office that supports these 

functions. This office can be contacted by phone or by e-mail at osd.pentagon.ousdatl.mbx.mipb@mail.mil. 

Chemical and Material Risk Management Program. This program produces 

environmental risk alerts, which are maintained by the DoD Environment, Safety, and 

Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange (https://www.denix.osd. 

mil/cmrmd). A newsletter on emerging environmental issues can be subscribed to at the 

following link: https://www.ecportalinfo.org/distlist_new.aspx. Quarterly webinars are held 

to communicate emerging issues. A request to be on the distribution list for these 

webinars or to communicate on issues of concern can be made through the following email address: osd.pentagon.ousd-atl.mbx.cmrmp@ mail.mil. 

Major OEMs in the supply chain. This would apply particularly in the case of those OEMs 

who are not already represented on the DMT but who may be profiling chemicals on their 

own products. 

Material engineers in the program office. 

Environmental engineers in the program office. As part of the program office’s 

programmatic environment, safety, and occupation health evaluation (PESHE) 

requirements, hazardous materials, waste, and pollutants on the system must be 

identified.64 Environmental engineers may also be briefed periodically on regulatory 

changes that might affect the program. 

Organizations that conduct materials research or perform industrial base sector analysis, 

and/or cross-cutting materials subject matter experts for the components. 

Figure 15 illustrates the second step of the proactive approach for issue identification for critical materials 

in the lower tier of the supply chain, as described above. This step focuses on assembling the materials-

 

64 Defense Acquisition Guidebook, “4.3.18.9. Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health,” May 15, 

2013, 182–187. 

76
SD-22 – January 2016 

related stakeholder knowledge and experience as part of DMT meetings in order to be able to raise 

materials-related red flags, as necessary, to help mitigate against being caught off guard. 

Figure 15. Engagement to Identify Potential DMSMS Issues 

Associated with Critical Materials 

















The rationale for these engagements focused on critical materials includes the following: 

Encourage all stakeholders to keep their ears open—primes and OEMs may be encouraged to 

more proactively monitor their supply chains 

Learn the potential issues others are aware of and what they are concerned about 

Learn what is being done 

Learn what conversations are taking place 

Actively share all information among the stakeholders 

Ultimately put the stakeholders in a position to anticipate changes in regulations and other 

market-driven disruptions to the critical materials supply chain. 

Once a potential problem is discovered, these engagements will force a conversation on what to do about 

the problem. A resolution that develops a drop-in replacement that is compliant and meets performance 

specifications is highly desirable. One of the stakeholders may be willing to take the lead in researching 

the issue and recommending a course of action. There may be circumstances where the prime and an 

OEM agree to resolve the problem because there is a clear business case for that to happen—this is 

most likely to occur when the material is included via a company-owned specification or drawing. 

By engaging high-level organizations, a DoD-wide initiative may be established. Some DMT research 

may be warranted, but in most cases this would not occur until other options have been pursued. 

Regardless of who does the research, some potential data sources are as follows: 

Industry associations. 

Organizations that track both recent and pending domestic and international regulation changes. 

In addition to the aforementioned Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Materials of Evolving 

77
SD-22 – January 2016 

Regulatory Interest Team, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has established a 

Center for Regulatory Risk Analysis and Communication, which issues a regulatory training 

summary twice per month.65

REACH, RoHS, and conflict minerals data associated with items. 

Other technical data, for example, annotations on drawings may lead to educated guesses about 

tracking or identifying critical material suppliers. 

Full material disclosures published on company websites. 

OEM contractual deliverables indicating potential DMSMS issues and supply issues. 









Just as proactive DMSMS monitoring should begin by the time of the program’s PDR, so should these 

engagements and chemical profiling activities. They may lead to a design change if substances are 

included where there is a concern about anticipated regulation. Also, they help establish a baseline of 

understanding critical material content and issues during sustainment. 

4.4.4. Product Discontinuation Notices 

The DMSMS management program should receive automated industry obsolescence notices and 

DMSMS alerts from the selected predictive tools, the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 

(GIDEP), and DLA. Although overlaps will occur, all three sources should be used to maximize 

completeness and timeliness and any PDNs received should be validated before any action is taken. In 

addition, the DMT should query manufacturers’ websites, build relationships with OCMs (similar to the 

vendor survey relationships), and access other federal supply sources and free government tools to 

identify data and notifications on item availability (see the DKSP for more information). The remainder of 

this subsection focuses on alerts and external triggers for item availability analysis updates from GIDEP 

and DLA. 

4.4.4.1. GIDEP 

A DMSMS management program should become a GIDEP member early in its life cycle and a member of 

the DMT should become trained in its usage. GIDEP is a cooperative activity between government and 

industry participants seeking to reduce or eliminate expenditures of resources by sharing essential 

technical information during the research, design, development, production, and operational phases of 

the life cycle of systems, facilities, and equipment. For complete requirements, and to become a member, 

see the GIDEP website (www.gidep.org). 

GIDEP is a useful tool to support monitoring and surveillance, because it has developed a part batch 

search routine that permits GIDEP participants to send and compare part lists to the part identifiers in the 

GIDEP database. Part lists are protected so that only GIDEP operations center personnel have access. 

Batch processing is available only to registered GIDEP participants. 

Also, as a GIDEP member, a program can get “push mail,” which is generated, as a convenience, to 

provide GIDEP participants with an overview of information without having to access the database. If a 

part or title in the list is of interest, the corresponding document can be retrieved through direct database 

access. All GIDEP representatives are automatically eligible to receive push mail. Users may also be 

granted access with their representative’s approval. Representatives can either access the push mail 

registration online to update their profile or to assign distribution to their users. Once users have been 

granted access to push mail, they can update and change their own distribution or e-mail online. As part 

of push mail, members can receive weekly summaries that list documents committed to the database 

during the week cited. The list includes the document number, date, designator, title, and abstract. 

Members can also request parts lists that represent all part identifiers (manufacturer, government, 

specification, drawing, model, base, and national stock numbers) either contained within or crossreferenced to all documents entered into the GIDEP database during the week cited. This allows a 

 

65 See http://www.nasa.gov/offices/rrac/home/. 

78
SD-22 – January 2016 

program to check its parts against the GIDEP-generated weekly parts list without having to create reports 

itself. A program may then enter the database to retrieve only those documents of interest to the program. 

GIDEP can also provide support when developing resolution options for a DMSMS issue. The GIDEP 

Urgent Data Request (UDR) is a service available to any authorized GIDEP user as well as the public. 

The service enables the user to enter two types of queries—a source of supply and a request for 

information. 





A source of supply request is a mechanism for locating hard to find or obsolete items that are no 

longer available through traditional sources. The item may be an entire assembly or a material 

used in its manufacture. If multiple sources of supply are found, the user can select the most 

cost-effective supplier. Significant time savings to resolve an issue are achievable if any source of 

supply is found. If no source of supply can be found, the query may lead to potential new 

production sources. 

A request for information may help an activity with resolutions to an obsolescence problem by 

finding technical or experiential data or other information that apply to the issue. For example, the 

request for information may ask for test, calibration, design, maintenance, or failure data. Having 

such data may help determine the viability of a substitute part. 

In summary, GIDEP does not have the ability to predict which parts will become obsolete, but it can 

provide a program with a no-cost means to find out which parts of interest already have discontinuation 

notices against them. Programs can also use GIDEP’s batch processing as a way to ensure that the 

program will receive discontinuance notices that match system parts and also may provide the ability to 

assist with identifying unmatched parts. 

4.4.4.2. Defense Logistics Agency 

DLA (www.dla.mil) also provides PDN alerts to subscribers—including military services, government 

agencies, FMS customers, and industry (with .mil e-mail accounts and common access card capability)—

through its shared data warehouse.66, 67 These DLA-generated alerts contain information not available 

through GIDEP, such as DLA usage and weapon system coding. For DLA-managed items, additional 

analyses are done to determine resolution options ranging from requesting users to determine quantities 

for life-of-need buys to examining options to emulate microcircuits using its Generalized Emulation of 

Microcircuits (GEM) and Advanced Microcircuit Emulation (AME) programs.68 Access to DLA’s websites 

allows a program to search the following: 







Qualified Manufacturers Lists (QMLs)/Qualified Products Lists (QPLs). The data provided in this 

search are updated as changes occur and may contain information not reflected in the hard-copy 

version. A program’s search will always return the latest information available at that time. 

QMLs/QPLs are also available in the ASSIST Qualified Products Database. DLA updates the lists 

as necessary and is charged with requalifying vendors every 2 years. 

Standard microcircuit cross-reference. This search provides a cross-reference of microcircuits 

covered by standard microcircuit drawings, MIL-M-38510 specifications, and vendor item 

drawings. If a program prefers to use the cross-reference data on a local computer, a standard 

microcircuit lookup table can be downloaded. 

Military specifications (MilSpecs) and drawings. This website provides courtesy copies of 

documents managed at DLA. If a program cannot find a document here, it may not be managed 

at DLA. For a complete list of all DoD MilSpecs, refer to DLA’s document automation and 

production service. 

 

66 The e-mail address to become a subscriber is dmsms@dla.mil. 

67 DLA’s Obsolescence Data Repository is a centralized repository for resolution data and 

information. 

68 See http://www.gemes.com. 

79
SD-22 – January 2016 

 Standard microcircuit drawings. A list of standard microcircuit drawings is available to download.

4.4.5. Special Considerations for Software 

The following discusses proactive software obsolescence management considerations associated with a 

diminished ability to use software for each of the rows of Table 6. Proactive management should be done 

as a function of the specific program’s strategic priorities and software risks (including the health of the 

software vendor). 

4.4.5.1. COTS Operating System, Middleware, and Application System 

The use of COTS software is increasing. It is often less expensive and quicker to integrate a COTS 

software product than to develop a custom product. COTS software may be monitored primarily by 

keeping track of licenses and support agreements,69 analyzing technology and product roadmaps and 

projected new release information, participating in user groups,70 tracking new interface standards, and 

conducting vendor surveys of the rapidly changing market to evaluate competitive products as a future 

replacement option.71 Just as qualified sources for hardware items should be identified, so should 

qualified sources of support for each element of software. Potential software vendor survey questions are 

as follows: 

































What is the basis for changing version/revision levels? Are they updated regularly, and when? 

How are patches and updates announced? How are they distributed? 

What is the current version/revision of the software? 

When was this product first available for sale? 

Has {your version/revision} been discontinued? 

How long will license agreements for {your version/revision} be obtainable? 

Will license downgrades be available? For how long? 

How long will you support {your version/revision}? 

Will third-party support be available after that? For how long? 

What is the planned product EOL? 

Is there a planned replacement product? 

Is the planned replacement backward-compatible? 

What are the different technical characteristics between the old and new version? 

What operating systems are compatible with the software? 

What are the minimum hardware requirements (if any), for example, processor speed, 

communications interfaces, or memory? 

Another aspect of proactive obsolescence management for COTS software is information 

assurance. DoD security bulletins may also be monitored. 

 

69 To achieve economies of scale, organizations should consider having a higher-level organization 

obtain licenses and support. This is not a DMSMS issue. 

70 User groups are also a source of information on error and vulnerabilities. 

71 There is a question of whether this function should be done at the program level or enterprise level 

for COTS software, because the same software may be used by multiple programs. In addition, the need 

for software vendor surveys may not be as great compared to hardware because much more software 

update information is available on the web. 

80
SD-22 – January 2016 

4.4.5.2. Custom Operating System, Middleware, and Application Software 

Because licenses do not usually apply to custom applications, the key information that can be tracked is 

viable continuation of support when there are both contractual and in-house elements. Surveys may not 

be the best mechanisms to obtain information. Program office sustainment personnel may be in a good 

position to identify potential software obsolescence risks. Key questions for consideration are as follows: 

























What is the current version/revision of the software? 

Do you still have the ability to modify the software? 

Is the source code repository maintained? 

Are the development tools maintained? 

Are there any third-party items? 

Are you able to compile those third-party items? 

What is the planned product EOL? 

What is the planned product end of support? 

Will third-party support be available after that? For how long? 

Is there a replacement product? 

Is the planned replacement backward-compatible? 

What development and testing hardware and software infrastructure are needed to maintain the 

software? 

4.4.5.3. Open Source Operating System, Middleware, and Application Software 

If open source software is used, the government and/or OEM should assume configuration control for the 

source code. An analogy can be made to custom software, but there are differences. The expertise for 

making changes is likely to be found in the open source community, not with the OEM. Consequently, 

proactive software obsolescence management may consider monitoring changes made to the open 

source version (often found in the website), because using the newer version of the software may be 

necessary to support changes to the older code being used by the government. Licensing may not be an 

issue but the terms and conditions for using the open source software should be reviewed by a legal team 

because, for example, there may be a requirement to provide any modifications to the entire open source 

community. 

4.4.5.4. GOTS Operating System, Middleware, and Application Software 

Government off-the-shelf (GOTS) software is a subset of COTS software; therefore, the same 

considerations may apply. Licensing is unlikely to be an issue. The vendor survey would be conducted 

with the appropriate government entity. 

4.4.5.5. COTS Firmware 

Product changes that only upgrade COTS firmware may impact the system. When buying items, the 

program may not realize that firmware changes have been made and that those changes may not be fully 

compatible with the rest of the system even though there is no issue with the hardware in which it is 

embedded. In this situation, the item is a functional group—a combination of hardware and software. The 

item becomes obsolete when either the hardware or the firmware becomes obsolete in a way that affects 

the system. 

COTS firmware changes may be tracked by monitoring the item itself as a functional group. If the 

hardware item is tracked through vendor surveys, a question about the firmware version or revision 

should be included. If the hardware item is monitored with a predictive tool, depending on the risk to the 

system, it may be important to include that hardware item in a vendor survey. Potential questions include 

the following: 





What is the current version of the firmware? 

Is it still in production? 

81
SD-22 – January 2016 











When was it last updated? What was the reason for the update? 

When is the next scheduled update? What is the reason for the update? 

What is the estimated remaining market life? 

How are updates announced and how are they distributed? 

How many years of maintenance will be offered for the older version? 

The need to use specific firmware to avoid a critical impact to the system should be documented; for 

example, the requirement may be identified in an engineering drawing. 

4.4.5.6. Custom Firmware 

There are no obvious considerations for proactive software obsolescence management because the 

program should be aware of changes to the firmware it controls. Therefore, there is no need to monitor 

such firmware. 

4.5. Collect and Update Programmatic and Logistics Data 

Programmatic and logistics data, along with the results of the items availability analysis, support the 

DMSMS impact assessment process and, ultimately, resolution determination. The data should be 

refreshed regularly (as changes are made to the systems being monitored) to ensure that the most up-todate data are used for DMSMS impact assessments and program decision making. In some cases, the 

data may be updated with the receipt of EOL notices for an item or set of system items or with the update 

of predictive tools or vendor surveys. 

The data collection process differs slightly as a function of acquisition phase. Early in the design phase, 

item data may be notional and based on a preferred parts list. Programmatic data may have less certainty 

early in a program. Predicted reliability data should be used until better data can be derived from 

operational use. Actual logistics data will be available only during sustainment. 

Logistics and programmatic data may be acquired from the program office, logistics databases, item 

managers, OEMs, and depots (contractor and organic). Of note, the services and DLA can obtain this 

type of information from their own logistics tools and databases. Those data enable the DMSMS 

management program to consider thorough DMSMS impact assessment, whether or not the 

obsolescence issues discovered affect the system and program negatively, when that impact may occur, 

and which mitigation resolution is most feasible and cost-effective. 

The following are among the types of programmatic data a DMSMS management program may consider 

collecting (applies to hardware and software): 











Life-cycle phase 

Planned technology insertions/refreshments 

Planned end of system life 

Planned number of systems 

Planned operating hours per system. 

Actual logistics data may be available only if a system has already entered the sustainment phase. 

Logistics data, however, should be considered a factor in DMSMS impact assessment from earlier 

phases in the life cycle, based upon predicted reliability data. Below are some examples of the types of 

logistics data a DMSMS management program should seek to collect (applies to hardware): 











Average demand 

On hand 

Due in/due out 

Procurement lead-time 

Repair philosophy 

82
SD-22 – January 2016 









Cost 

Back-orders and how long items have been back-ordered 

Unserviceable 

Measure of reliability. 

The existence of logistics data for the system should enable the program to identify those items, 

assemblies, and units of the system that present potential sustainment issues and those that do not. 

Those data can then be compared to the items’ availability analysis results during impact assessment to 

determine the risk presented by a particular obsolescence issue. 

4.6. Develop Health Assessments 

Early in a program, particularly during design, a “quick-look” health assessment should be generated 

based upon a review of a preliminary parts list to identify potential obsolescence issues; however, as the 

BOMs for the system design mature, more detailed health assessments should be generated. A quicklook health assessment enables a program to obtain a high-level snapshot regarding the obsolescence 

health of its system design. This less-detailed assessment might be of particular use during early phases 

of the life cycle and/or during the early stages of DMSMS management, when the system design may still 

be in flux and a complete parts list or BOM data are not yet available. However, a quick-look assessment 

might also be useful at other times during the system life cycle, serving as an executive summary to a 

more detailed health assessment. 

Ideally, the quick-look health assessments should be aligned to coincide with the major technical design 

reviews or design changes. Their delivery should be made prior to such design reviews in order to identify 

ahead of time and, ideally, help to prevent the incorporation of an obsolete or near-obsolete item into a 

design. This could be either an obsolete item itself (e.g., a die) or its packaging. “Quick-look” 

assessments should not, however, be restricted to supporting the design reviews. They should be 

conducted whenever new parts lists are received. 

Table 7 is a sample template for organizing information for a quick-look health assessment. Each 

program should tailor the information and format of such an assessment to best suit its needs. The key is 

for the assessment to highlight risk in terms of its impact on cost, schedule, and performance, as well as 

to ensure that mitigation actions are being planned and implemented. 

The first two rows of Table 7 are especially important early in the life cycle. They give an indication of the 

status of two key enablers of robust DMSMS management. The next two rows measure the scope of the 

DMSMS effort underway relative to where it should be from a risk-based perspective. Finally, the last 

three rows portray a high-level view of the extent of obsolescence in the system. 

Table 7. Sample Template for a Quick-Look Analysis of Designs for Obsolescence Risk 

Risk area Value 

Impact (high, medium, low) Red/yellow/ 

Cost Schedule Performance green

Early preparation 

DMP adequate and 

appropriately funded (as judged 

by 

logistics and reliability) 

throughout the supply chain 

Not 

applicable 

Technology roadmap in place 

and integrated into DMSMS 

management process, and vice 

versa 

Not 

applicable 

83
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 7. Sample Template for a Quick-Look Analysis of Designs for Obsolescence Risk 

Risk area Value 

Impact (high, medium, low) Red/yellow/ 

Cost Schedule Performance green

Ability to monitor 

Percentage of critical 

BOMs/parts lists available (i.e., 

a risk-informed decision has 

been made to monitor) 

Percentage of available 

critical BOMs/parts lists 

being monitored 

Item obsolescence 

Percentage/number of items 

obsolete (or with EOL notice) 

Percentage/number of items at 

high risk (custom items, ASICs, 

hybrids, sole source, etc.) 

Number of obsolescence cases 

open, closed, and pending (i.e., 

no assessment has occurred to 

determine whether to open a 

case) 

“Detailed” health assessments (sometimes referred to as “tombstone” charts or sustainability analysis) 

should begin when the design becomes mature. They should be conducted regularly (at the culmination 

of each iteration of the recurring processes of the identify step) through the remainder of system 

development, production, and sustainment. Detailed health assessments document the estimated 

obsolescence dates, usage rates, and stocks on hand or items due in to identify when an item or 

assembly will no longer be supportable. These assessments should also show the projected time frames 

for potential software obsolescence risk (including license and maintenance) for all of the monitored 

software. They provide key information needed to assess whether to open a DMSMS case. Detailed 

assessments are discussed in Section 5. 

For a program to ensure that health assessments are provided periodically for review, it might need to 

include this requirement in its requests for proposals (RFPs). The requirement should likewise be applied 

throughout the supply chain. For the PDR and CDR, the program could require a contractor to identify 

and address any current and forecasted obsolescence risk pertaining to critical items within the design. 

This would include an analysis of any planned reuse of an existing design. After CDR, the program 

should regularly update and report on the risk assessment and obsolescence forecast for the design. 

5. Assess: DMSMS Impact Assessment 

An old logistician’s proverb—which begins with “for want of a nail the (horse) shoe was lost” and ends 

with the kingdom being lost, “all for want of a nail”—illustrates that the lowest-level item in a system’s 

hierarchy can affect the entire system. Consequently, the Assess step of the DMSMS management 

program examines the potential effects that a DMSMS issue, at any level of a system, may have on cost, 

schedule, availability, and readiness. Most DMSMS issues result in a combination of these effects and, 

ultimately, all if left unaddressed: 

 Cost impacts may be experienced in any stage of the life cycle. The impact is measured as 

(1) the additional cost that must be paid to resolve the issue, (2) the change in support costs (it 

will cost the program less if reliability is improved), and (3) the difference in the cost of items 

84
SD-22 – January 2016 

before and after resolution. This third element of cost may be positive or negative, depending on 

the resolution pursued. If a more expensive alternative item is used, then the cost will be higher. 

Schedule impacts are usually associated with the design or production elements of the life cycle, 

because obsolescence may delay design or production activities. 

Availability and readiness impacts normally occur during sustainment. DMSMS issues may affect 

the mission capability of a system, or they may prevent the system from being used altogether. 





The purpose of the impact assessment is to answer three questions: 





Should a resolution to the problem be pursued? Or, should a case be opened? 

Which problem should be addressed first? 

 At what level should a resolution be applied? 

Figure 16 summarizes the DMSMS management activities leading up to the Assess step. As the figure 

shows, an impact assessment may be initiated for the following reasons: 







The results of predictive tools or vendor surveys indicate a problem. 

The program receives a PDN. 

A change occurs in a health assessment because of an increase in demand for obsolete items in 

inventory. 

At this point in the DMSMS management process, data have been collected to help provide answers to 

the above three questions. The remainder of this section describes the specifics of the data and analysis 

needed to determine the impact of the shortages. As a best practice, as much data as possible should be 

gathered to increase the rigor of the analysis. However, in many cases, some of the data may not be 

available. The DMT should do the best job possible with the data it has. When the DMT uses 

assumptions to compensate for missing data, the results of the analysis will be subject to greater 

uncertainty. 

Figure 16. Initiation of the Assessment Step 

85
SD-22 – January 2016 







5.1. Identify Data Needs 

Every program is unique, and the criteria established for assessing DMSMS risk are specific to the 

program’s priorities. Regardless of the approach to the overall assessment, four types of data are 

needed: programmatic, availability, criticality, and logistics. 

5.1.1. Programmatic Data 

Below are the different types of programmatic data needed for an impact assessment: 

Life-cycle phase. If the program is in the design or production phase, the overall life-cycle risk is 

significant, and emphasis on obsolescence issues at this point will have a significant impact on 

the total ownership cost of the program. However, an obsolescence issue discovered in the 

sustainment phase may not be as significant if the program is scheduled for disposal or if the 

replacement system is ready to be fielded. Industry tends to be interested in collaborating with 

DoD to solve an obsolescence issue during the design and production phases of acquisition; 

however, such collaboration can be difficult once the production line has gone cold. 

Planned technology insertions or refreshments for the subject item/assembly/software element 

and the next higher unit. This information is important for an obsolescence issue at any point in 

the life cycle, because it presents an opportunity to eliminate the requirement for the problem 

item. It is important to understand whether the planned technology insertion or refreshment is 

funded. If no resources are programmed, then technology insertion or refreshment is unlikely to 

occur. It is also important to understand that DMSMS management is not the driver of technology 

insertion or refreshment. DMSMS management simply leverages this information to determine 

risk and, where appropriate, to recommend a resolution option. However, DMSMS issues can 

affect the technology refreshment’s scope and schedule, both positively and negatively, after they 

are initially established. 

Planned end of system life. EOL data are used for inventory-related calculations. If the system is 

in design or production, the system EOL may not be known. Even during sustainment, the EOL 

may be uncertain, because of unplanned service life extensions, which in turn affect inventory 

86
SD-22 – January 2016 

requirements and may have potential DMSMS impacts. If the service life is extended, DMSMS 

situations with no operational impact before the extension may have a significant operational 

impact because of the extension. Nevertheless, the only approach is to base DMSMS impact 

assessments on official plans. 

Number of systems in use over time through the end of system life. This number is used for 

inventory-related calculations. If the system is in design or production, only near-term numbers 

may be available. 

Planned average operating hours per system. This number is used to help calculate demand for 

the item. If the system is in design or production, future average operating hours may not be 

available. In that case, it may be possible to make estimates based upon historical data of similar 

systems. The duty cycle must also be taken into account. 





5.1.2. Availability Data 

Availability data are needed at the item, assembly, and unit levels. For software elements, the program 

should track licenses, end-of-support dates, and frequency of updates. Availability should be identified at 

the lowest level possible, with an assessment of the impact at the next higher levels to better understand 

the risk and to help identify the most efficient cost resolution option. The DMT should differentiate 

between items that are currently unavailable and items forecasted to be obsolete in the near term (within 

2 or 3 years). If authorized substitutes are available, there is no current obsolescence risk. 

5.1.3. Criticality Data 

Like availability data, criticality data are needed at the item, assembly, and unit levels. The first process in 

the Identify step (Section 4) is to prioritize systems according to their mission criticality and safety-related 

features. Those same criticality factors apply in impact assessments. Furthermore, item (hardware and 

software) criticality is often determined by the criticality of its function. Examples of items with critical 

functions are microprocessors, microcontrollers, memory, ASICs, and field-programmable gate arrays. 

Finally, the cost of the item is a criticality factor. 

5.1.4. Logistics Data 

Programs managed and repaired organically can have access to logistics data, assuming the data are 

captured and archived. Each military service has a logistics management system and item managers who 

have access to and understand logistics data. The contractor will have the data for programs that employ 

contractor logistics support; the government should arrange to have access to this information via 

contract requirements and deliverables. The following are examples of logistics data: 













Demand for the items, assemblies, and units with DMSMS issues. This applies primarily to items 

in sustainment, unless the same items are used in the same way on other systems in the 

inventory. 

Reliability of the items, assemblies, and units with DMSMS issues. This should be the same as 

the demand data for items in sustainment. When in design or production, when no demand data 

have been collected, the manufacturer’s stated reliability may be used, but it introduces more 

uncertainty into the impact assessment. 

Inventory for the items, assemblies, and units with DMSMS issues. Inventory may be found in the 

service depot (either contractor or organic), production facility, and DLA facilities. The portion of 

the inventories should be identified for the system in question versus that for other platforms. 

Data on inventory due in, backlogged orders, and the length of time on back-order are also 

relevant. If the system is in design or production, inventory is most likely available from 

contractors. 

Maintenance philosophy for the items, assemblies, and units with DMSMS issues. Some items 

may be repairable, while other items may be disposed of when they fail. The availability of or the 

development of a source of repair can reduce the risk that all of these elements must be 

investigated. 

Repair history. It may prove useful to know how often the item is repaired: rarely or frequently. 

Survival rates. This represents the fraction of time repair is economically feasible. 

87
SD-22 – January 2016 

5.2. Assess Impact of a DMSMS Issue 

Understanding the overall risk of an obsolescence issue depends on understanding when the issue will 

affect the system. This can be accomplished only through an understanding of the logistics position of the 

items within the system. An analysis of the logistics and programmatic data provides a snapshot in time of 

current inventory levels and usage rates in order to identify the time frame available (sometimes referred 

to as days of supply) to identify and implement a resolution. The ability to develop a resolution—within the 

time frame of availability levels and while a replacement item is available—is directly related to the risk of 

experiencing some negative impact as a result of a DMSMS issue.

To determine the potential for a future shortage of a particular item, the DMT must estimate the future 

demand for the item and determine whether the existing stocks (including items due in and items on 

back-order) will meet that demand. Mathematical methods, accepted by the logistics community, are 

available for calculating future demand.72 These models may need to be applied to the NHA. If the subject 

item will be removed from the system by a planned technology insertion, then the period of requirement 

ends when the item is replaced. 

Once the demand is established for the period required, the DMT can simply subtract the demand from 

the available stock to determine if and when the shortage will affect the system. Estimating the future 

demand for items is risky, due primarily to two key assumptions that must be made: projected future 

operational hours and reliability. The relative risk varies from decision to decision, but it is real and should 

be expressed to higher level decision makers when proposing resolutions. The risk introduced by 

assumptions is always higher before a system is deployed, because no reliability data based on actual 

operations are available. 

The detailed health assessments introduced in Section 4 display obsolescence data to support assessing 

the impact of DMSMS issues. They offer a program a more comprehensive accounting of its specific 

obsolescence issues, both existing issues and issues anticipated to appear within a specific period of 

time. These assessments are usually organized by individual subsystem. 

A detailed health assessment breaks out individual items, documenting, by year, the starting quantity 

balance, predicted/actual usage, and ending quantity balance of that item over a certain time frame, say 

10 years. This information enables a program to identify when to address a given DMSMS issue. Being 

able to look across items may also suggest ideal timing for addressing a set of DMSMS issues within a 

particular subsystem. A program can consider how mission capability and readiness would be affected if 

the identified DMSMS issues pertaining to a particular item or set of items across a subsystem or COTS 

assembly are not resolved before a certain date. For example, the assessment could be used to 

determine a cost-effective time to consider DMSMS resolutions at a higher level of assembly than the 

obsolete item. 

Table 8 is a simplified example of the type of format that could be used for reporting the results of a 

detailed health assessment. Programs should tailor the content and format of their detailed health 

assessments to best meet their specific needs. Below are some potential enhancements: 







Include rows for both obsolete and obsolescent items. 

Include due-ins from prior orders. 

Include planned procurements of items that are not yet obsolete. 

 

72 Many articles are related to this topic; one good source is 

http://src.alionscience.com/pdf/POIS_APP.pdf. 

88
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 8. Example Template for a Detailed Health Assessment Report of a System

Ite

m 

no.

Item 

type 

Subsystem FYx FYx FYx FYx FYx FYx FYx FYx FYx 

Status characteristics FYx +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9

123 Microprocesso

r 

1 Starting balance 4 3 2 0 −1 −2 −3 −5 −6 −7 

Predicted/actual usage 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

Ending balance 3 2 0 −1 −2 −3 −5 −6 −7 −8 

456 Amplifier 1 Starting balance 135 122 108 92 75 55 33 8 −18 −44

Predicted/actual usage 13 14 16 17 20 22 25 26 26 26

Ending balance 122 108 92 75 55 33 8 −18 −44 −70

789 Touch 

screen 

2 Starting balance 16 15 14 13 11 10 9 8 7 5 

Predicted/actual usage 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 

Ending balance 15 14 13 11 10 9 8 7 5 4 

211 Motherbo

ard

2 Starting balance 12 10 7 4 2 −1 −4 −7 −9 −12

Predicted/actual usage 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 

Ending balance 10 7 4 2 −1 −4 −7 −9 −12 −15

222 Graphics 

CCA

2 Starting balance 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10

Predicted/actual usage 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Ending balance 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10

233 Ethernet 

interface 

2 Starting balance 18 14 11 7 3 −1 −5 −9 −13 −17

Predicted/actual usage 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Ending balance 14 11 7 3 −1 −5 −9 −13 −17 −21

244 Serial I/O 

CCA

2 Starting balance 2 −38 −83 −128 −173 −218 −263 −308 −353 −398

Predicted/actual usage 40 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

Ending balance −38 −83 −128 −173 −218 −263 −308 −353 −398 −443

255 Notebook 

computer 

2 Starting balance 11 10 9 7 6 5 4 2 1 0 

Predicted/actual usage 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 

Ending balance 10 9 7 6 5 4 2 1 0 −1 

Legend: 

Sufficient assets to support more than 5 years 

Sufficient assets to support next 5 years 

Zero quantity reached within 4 years 

Zero quantity reached within 3 years 

Insufficient assets (0 or negative) 

As described above, detailed health assessments identify current and future DMSMS issues. This 

information should be provided to the appropriate technology road-mapping community to develop or 

update technology refreshment/insertion plans. After the plans are established and decisions are made 

concerning their implementation, they should be a consideration in the Assess step. Detailed health 

assessments and technology refreshment/insertion plans provide key information for answering the three 

impact assessment questions. These questions apply only to first-order software obsolescence under the 

89
SD-22 – January 2016 

assumption that derivative obsolescence will be resolved as part of the changes implemented from 

hardware changes, requirements changes, and technology upgrades. 

5.2.1. Should a Resolution to the Problem Be Pursued? 

Just because a predictive tool indicates that a particular item is obsolete, or anticipated to be obsolete by 

a particular date, does not automatically translate into a DMSMS issue for which a program should 

pursue a resolution. A program will want to first validate the risk by examining when the item will no longer 

be available, the stocks on hand for the item, and the expected time to implement a resolution. The 

factoring in of the time to implement a resolution may be of particular importance when addressing a 

MaSME item. For example, there may be instances where an item, perhaps particularly a MaSME item, is 

not yet obsolete, but the time to realize a resolution would be very long. Depending on the exact facts of 

the situation, it may be worthwhile for the program to either increase its on-hand inventory or take an 

action that would reduce the time to resolve the issue should it arise. 

One way to answer this question is to identify when a resolution should not be pursued. Clearly, no 

resolution is needed if enough items are on hand to meet all future demands. However, because the level 

of “all future demands” is never certain, the level of risk should be considered, as illustrated in these 

situations: 













Situation 1. If the system is in sustainment and there have never been demands for the item 

facing a DMSMS issue, then there is a low risk for not pursuing a resolution. 

Situation 2. If the system is in sustainment and calculations show that enough inventory of the 

item is on hand to last until the system is retired or until a technology refreshment replaces the 

item, then the risk of not pursuing a resolution is low, but it should be evaluated further. For 

instance, a program should also keep in mind that the item inventory available may not be held 

for a particular program; therefore, inventory levels should be monitored periodically. Reliability 

data are an extremely useful input in the assessment of risk at any level in the configuration: the 

higher the reliability, the greater the availability of the item and, therefore, the lower the risk of an 

obsolescence impact. For example, if a circuit card assembly seldom has to be replaced or 

repaired (highly reliable), obsolescence issues at the item level will not be as high risk as an 

obsolescence issue on a card that is continually being repaired or replaced. This information, if 

available, should be used in the overall assessment. If the EOL date for the item is uncertain and 

the item is in high demand, a best practice is to keep it on the list of problems to be addressed, 

but with low priority. Conversely, for items with a known EOL date and low-demand items, the risk 

of not pursuing a resolution is relatively low. 

Situation 3. The risk of not pursuing a resolution could be considered low if there are reclamation 

opportunities to recover a sufficient quantity of the item to satisfy the projected demand for that 

item. 

Situation 4. While a system is in the design or production phase, a constant supply of items is 

usually required. The rare exception is when there is a high degree of confidence that all items 

needed for production and sustainment have already been procured. The uncertainty of such an 

analysis would be enormous. 

As illustrated through the situations above, when hardware–electronic and MaSME items become 

obsolete, there may be stockpiles that last for a while. A resolution may not be needed at all, 

depending on the days of supply on hand. Loss of a software license will usually have a more 

immediate impact. Assuming the software is mission or safety critical, a resolution should be 

pursued. Similarly, an information assurance issue with the software has an immediate impact as 

the software can no longer be used without a waiver. 

Loss of software support is more complex. If obsolete software has never been changed and no 

errors have been uncovered or no changes are anticipated, then it also may be safe not to pursue 

a resolution for some period of time. The software may continue to operate correctly until the end 

of system life as long as the underlying layers can be sustained. Consequently, the cost of 

changing the software becomes a consideration. Requalification of systems after a software 

90
SD-22 – January 2016 

change can be more extensive than after a hardware change due in part to the complex nature of 

the required testing. 

In the case of firmware changes, there is a question of whether there will be an effect if a new 

functional group is introduced into the system. A resolution should be pursued on the basis of the 

risk in making changes in the functional group application. 

When an issue of environmental compliance is identified with regard to a material, the program 

will need to evaluate how long the item in which that material is resident will remain available. 





5.2.2. Which Problem Should Be Addressed First? 

A step-by-step process can be used to prioritize problems on the basis of their impact on the program. 

Several ways exist to develop such a prioritized list. The example here is based on knowledge of piecepart electronics, circuit card assemblies, and the black boxes the circuit cards populate. A similar 

approach for assessing risk of mechanical assemblies, materials, and COTS assemblies can be derived 

from these steps. There is one situation, however, that may make prioritization of the problem 

unnecessary—an external organization will resolve the issue. This may be the case for a common item 

that is shared among many platforms. The DMT may become aware of such a situation through its 

interfaces with DMSMS activities in other programs. This may also be the case for subtier materials 

where a higher-level organization is pursuing a DoD-wide resolution. In either situation, the DMT should 

evaluate whether that external resolution will meet both its schedule and its technical requirements. 

The steps below are based on assessing the impact of circuit card obsolescence issues given knowledge 

of the devices (piece parts) on the card. These steps include general statements, such as rank by “x” or 

adjust the rankings as a function of “y.” There is no set formula for these rankings and adjustments. They 

are based on the experience of the person making the assessment: 









The first step considers both an analysis of piece-part availability and the results of the calculation 

of the time frame until impact using the logistics data and the programmatic data. The order in 

which availability and logistics analyses are evaluated is determined by the risk assessor. Initially, 

the cards could be ranked by some combination of the total number of obsolete parts per card, 

the number of obsolete mission- or safety-critical parts per card, and the number and distribution 

of unique parts. The rankings could then be adjusted by the days of supply and the average 

monthly demand for both the parts and the card if the system is in sustainment. If the system is in 

design or production, reliability data, if available, could be used for the average monthly demand. 

Inventory levels would be the contractor’s stock level.

The second step is to adjust the rankings based on the near-term obsolescence risk for the parts 

and the card and on the number of sources or alternatives available for the parts on the card. 

These data could be generated using predictive tools. 

A third step is to adjust the rankings based on the maintenance philosophy for the parts and the 

card. If the circuit card is repairable and the obsolete parts are highly reliable, then the risk of the 

part causing the card to be unavailable is not as great as if the card is a throw-away and no more 

cards can be produced, due to an obsolete part (even if it is reliable). For example, a repairable 

circuit card with critical obsolete items may not rank as high risk if the inventory levels of the 

circuit card are high and the usage rate is low, whereas a card not considered highly complex 

may be a greater risk based on low inventory levels and high demand rates. The bottom line is 

that no matter how simple the card, if a spare is not available, then the unit is out of commission. 

On the basis of this additional logistics information, the risk priority of the cards in a given unit 

may change. In design or production, this step might not affect the rankings very much, but the 

factors addressed are a consideration. 

A final step is to examine programmatic data concerning product improvement plans or other 

mitigation efforts already underway. If a modernization plan calls for the replacement of the unit or 

if a refreshment of any of the circuit cards is planned, the risk priority may change yet again. For 

example, if a circuit card assembly is identified as high risk with low inventory levels, but a 

replacement unit is scheduled to be fielded, the risk may not be as great. The time frame for 

fielding and the ability to support the card through other means until that time may reduce the risk 

91
SD-22 – January 2016 

and therefore the priority of the card. These factors would probably not have much effect for a 

system in design or production. 

If information is available about the electronic piece parts that populate a unit, but no structure is available 

to understand the breakdown from the unit to the card level, then the above four steps are completely 

analogous to Situation 1. Only the risk at the part level and this translation to the unit level can be 

evaluated. The number of obsolete items, the complexity of the function of any obsolete items, and the 

near-term obsolescence risks, along with logistics information at the unit level and the programmatic data, 

will identify the risk. For example, assume the list of parts contains 100 unique items. The availability 

analysis identifies no current obsolescence issues; however, several critical part functions are predicted 

to be obsolete in less than 2 years. The unit was just fielded, with production to continue for 2 more years 

and no near-term plan to replace it. In this situation, the near-term obsolescence elevates the risk of the 

unit, but the DMT has some time to plan the resolution options. Evaluating the availability of alternates for 

the high-risk items and working with the program and the prime contractor to develop a path ahead will 

reduce the DMSMS risk of this unit. 

The same four steps could be used for assessing a COTS or a mechanical assembly for which part data 

are unlikely to be available. However, the analysis would be much less granular. Instead of using 

predictive tools, the DMT would need to derive availability data from vendor surveys. For step 1, the 

availability data would simply be that the assembly is obsolete and the logistics data would be similar to 

the above. Step 2 would consider just the near-term obsolescence risk for the assembly, and steps 3 and 

4 would be analogous to the above. For example, assume the supplier survey indicates that the box will 

be available for another year and that a replacement is planned for when the box is discontinued. 

However, this replacement is not backward compatible; therefore, some nonrecurring engineering is 

required and, possibly, some testing to evaluate the use of the new unit in the system. From the logistics 

input, the DMT determines that the demand rate is low, with enough inventory to support the item for 

another 18 months as long as the demand rate does not increase. The risk may be assessed as low, 

given the availability of a replacement and the current inventory levels. 

In another case, only one manufacturer supplies ball bearings for aviation platforms. The Industrial 

Capability Assessment (ICA) of the manufacturer indicates both financial and work-force well-being. 

However, the ICA also indicates that the manufacturer has limited capacity to surge and that all aviation 

platforms across the military services use this one source of ball bearings. If current inventory levels 

indicate a 6-month supply at the current operating tempo, and if DoD plans to increase the operating 

tempo, the ball bearings could be a high-risk item for availability (material shortage) even though not 

obsolete. The supplier might have problems meeting delivery schedules if multiple systems also 

experience an increase in operating tempo. If an additional source for these bearings is being developed, 

but qualification of the new supplier is still 2 years out, this manufacturer and this item would be 

considered medium risk and monitored. Evaluation of the increase in flying hours, along with reliability of 

the bearings, can identify possible future shortages. 

Even though software can function for a long period of time with no support and without any adverse 

impact if underlying layers are stable, the loss of a software license should be addressed immediately. 

The same holds true for software no longer meeting information assurance requirements or a firmware 

change that affects system operation. When determining the priority under a loss-of-support situation, 

consideration should be given to the number and frequency of updates, the number of different versions 

currently being used on the system, or the age of the versions in use.73

5.2.3. At What Level Should a Resolution Be Applied? 

If a system will be affected by a DMSMS issue, the DMT should determine where in the item’s hierarchy 

to apply the resolution. For example, the subject item may be one of many items within its hierarchy that 

have DMSMS issues. In such cases, it may be expeditious to replace or redesign the assembly rather 

 

73 Software can degrade through configuration incompatibilities. While all the individual software 

elements may be fine, over time, the combination of these elements can be incompatible and lead to 

system failure. 

92
SD-22 – January 2016 

than resolve the problems with each individual item. The same factors should be considered in this 

analysis: 











Number and difficulty of DMSMS problems in the hierarchy 

Reliability of items in the hierarchy 

Expense of repair within the hierarchy compared with redesign or replacement 

Life cycle of other items in the hierarchy 

Potential for enhancing mission capabilities by redesigning or replacing items. 

Most of these factors can be analyzed by the DMT if sufficient data exist. The importance of integrating 

item availability data with logistics and life-cycle data cannot be overemphasized when analyzing the 

impact of a DMSMS issue. The first factor is largely a numbers game. If the cost to implement numerous 

DMSMS resolutions exceeds the cost to redesign the NHA, then the redesign should be considered.74

The second and third factors are similar, in that one must compare the cost of continued operation of the 

existing item to that of implementing and maintaining a new item. This calculation is more involved, but in 

the end, it is a simple evaluation of which resolution provides the most bang for the buck. 

The fourth factor requires a more subjective judgment, because item life cycles are not a strictly objective 

measure and because educated guesses are required to predict DMSMS problems. One must look at 

various sources of information and determine if the risk of future obsolescence and its accompanying 

costs exceed the benefits of resolving known problems now. This analysis is often the basis for planning 

technology refreshes and may result in a decision to resolve the DMSMS problem for a limited time (lifeof-need buy). 

The last factor will require the input of other program, and potentially higher-level, personnel. If future 

mission demands require new equipment or different capabilities, it may be expeditious to implement 

those features now rather than to wait. 

For software, an impact assessment is more complicated. Hardware impact assessment is relatively 

linear in that item obsolescence will have an effect on its NHAs. There often are non-linear, secondary 

and tertiary effects of software obsolescence. Consequently, software dependencies—those elements of 

the system potentially affected by changes to software—are usually more complex and far reaching than 

those of hardware. Understanding software (and hardware, for that matter) dependencies is crucial for 

determining the most cost-effective level 

of resolution.75 Because of this, the answer to this question should be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. 

 

74 A single item may be a constituent component in multiple higher-level assemblies. This may 

change the cost calculation, because multiple higher-level assemblies may need to be redesigned. The 

most cost-effective option could be a combination of resolutions at the item level and at higher levels of 

assembly. 

75 That is why identification of the interdependencies was included in the Identify phase of robust 

DMSMS management. 

93
SD-22 – January 2016 

6. Analyze: DMSMS Resolution Determination 

This section discusses the Analyze step; specifically, it explains how to find the best resolution option. 

The resolution determination process is iterative; the analysis is updated as new issues are identified and 

prioritized. Typically, new issues to be resolved are added at every DMT meeting. The following 

subsections address identifying the cost elements associated with estimating implementation costs, 

identifying and defining resolution options, and determining the preferred resolution option. The resolution 

determination process is the same whether the DMSMS issue is related to hardware–electronic and 

MaSME items or software. 

6.1. Identify Resolution Cost Elements 

To determine the best resolution, a program must first understand that resolution’s total implementation 

cost. That cost is the sum of all applicable cost elements associated with that resolution. For example, a 

resolution may require anything from simple drawing and technical manual updates to full development 

and testing of new designs to be implemented in a system. If the actual costs for particular cost elements 

are known, those costs should be used to develop a more accurate account of the costs required to 

implement a resolution or series of resolutions. Actual costs give a program the most accurate account of 

the funding required to mitigate obsolescence and is an important metric.76 Although using actual costs 

for resolutions is preferred, actual costs may not be readily available, and obtaining actual costs may be 

cost-prohibitive. Therefore, each program should develop average costs for each applicable cost 

element.77

The following cost elements should be considered when determining the total cost for resolving a 

DMSMS issue: 





















Engineering and engineering data revision—cost of modifying drawings and other data to reflect 

the new configuration 

Purchase of engineering, design, or technical data—cost of purchasing technical data required for 

support 

Qualification of new items—research and evaluation cost generated in choosing a new item 

Revision of test procedures—cost of updating test procedures to accommodate any new testing 

requirements of the selected solution 

Software changes—cost of updating software because of the selected solution and including 

software updates to test equipment 

Start-up costs—nonrecurring engineering costs to develop production or repair capabilities 

Testing—cost of testing requirements for the selected resolution to ensure system 

compatibility 

Tooling, equipment, test equipment, or software—cost of repairing and maintaining equipment 

Computer programs and documentation—costs of new software and documentation to support 

the new item 

Interim support—contractor cost to maintain a product until a permanent resolution can be 

implemented 

 

76 Over time, this metric can be referenced for projecting budget requirements for implementing 

solutions. See Section 7. 

77 A future version of SD-22 will contain information on average costs using this cost element 

approach. Previous versions of SD-22 provided average costs for different resolution types. These 

averages did not consider all of the applicable cost elements. Consequently, budgets based on these 

averages usually underfunded resolution implementation. 

94
SD-22 – January 2016 

















Item cost—cost to procure the item for the entire life cycle 

Manpower—cost of maintenance personnel needed to support the resolution for the life cycle 

Spares—cost to procure spares for sustainment 

Supply and provisioning data—cost to update logistics data to ensure support of selected 

resolution 

Support and test equipment—cost to provide the repair center with any required support or test 

equipment 

Technical manuals—cost to provide any manuals and documentation to repair centers 

Training and trainers—cost to develop and maintain training for the new equipment 

Any other costs as required. 

The prevalence of counterfeit parts and the use of lead-free (Pb-free) solder in the electronics industry 

also affect the costs and risks to resolve a DMSMS issue. When a DMSMS resolution option involves 

purchasing an electronic item from sources other than authorized suppliers (i.e., OCM, OEM, authorized 

or franchised distributer, or authorized or approved after-market manufacturers), additional testing must 

be done to ensure that counterfeit parts do not enter DoD’s supply chain. Therefore, the average testing 

cost must be included. (See Appendix F on counterfeit parts and DMSMS management.) 

The impact of Pb-free solder is more complex. It is not easy to know whether an alternative item uses Pbfree solder. However, certain critical DoD applications require that tin-lead (SnPb) solder be used. This 

adds a technical constraint on the acceptability of certain resolutions. Furthermore, if Pb-free is a 

requirement, then additional costs may be incurred to detect, test, and mitigate any use of Pb-free 

products. Such additional costs should be factored into the cost element averages. (See Appendix K on 

Pb-free electronics and DMSMS management.) 

When determining the most accurate average cost for each element, a program should use various 

factors, such as the following: 







Historical testing and qualification cost data of previously implemented resolutions for like 

equipment 

Historical testing and qualification cost data of similar programs with like equipment 

Historical development and redesign costs of like equipment within or outside the program. 

In addition, averages are affected by the type of item, commodity, population, and operating environment. 

The type of item may be raw material, components, or assemblies. The commodity could be electronics, 

mechanical, electrical, or computer. The population, or number of items, can have a large effect on costs, 

due to economies of scale. Finally, the operating environment will make a large difference in testing and 

certification requirements for approving and qualifying new items into a system. Operating environments 

may be aviation, shipboard, space, or ground. 

6.2. Identify and Define DMSMS Resolution Options 

Many different types of resolutions exist for resolving an obsolescence issue. These resolutions fall into 

three broad categories: existing material (logistics), substitutes (engineering), and redesign (engineering). 

These broad categories indicate the level and amount of research required to implement a resolution. As 

a program progresses through the various resolution categories, the amount of research and number of 

cost elements required to implement a resolution increase. Resolutions under the existing material 

(logistics) category require actions to secure availability of existing supply. Substitute (engineering) 

resolutions require engineering involvement to qualify or implement. Redesign resolutions usually require 

all aspects of engineering and qualification to implement new or highly modified equipment. Table 9 

contains the standard definitions and examples of each type of resolution, in order of complexity. 

95
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 9. DMSMS Resolution Options, Definitions, and Examples 

Resolution Definition Examples 

No solution 

required 

No solution is required, because 

existing stock contained in 

government or contractor-maintained 

inventories will satisfy future 

demands for the product or because 

the existing software may be used 

indefinitely without any anticipated 

repercussions. This is often the result 

of planned technology refreshment, 

redesign, or system retirement. 

It is determined that sufficient stock of an item 

exists in current government or contractormaintained inventories to support the system until 

its next technology refreshment. 

It is determined that firmware embedded in 

obsolete hardware will remain functional until the 

hardware is replaced and existing hardware stocks 

are sufficient to meet system requirements through 

the end of service date. 

A UDR query identified a vendor that had new 

items with a government acceptance stamp on 

them that had previously been sold as excess. 

Approved item The obsolescence issue is resolved 

by the use of items already approved 

on the drawing and still in production. 

Research indicates that the drawing includes a 

reference to another approved item that is still 

available. Supply is directed to procure the other 

approved item. 

The media used to store the software is no longer 

readable (e.g., floppy disks). The software is 

digitally ported to a CD. 

Life-of-need buy A sufficient quantity of the item is 

purchased to sustain the product until 

its next technology refreshment or the 

discontinuance of the host assembly. 

The quantity purchased should 

consider demands from all users. 

Because this resolution uses an 

approved item, no testing or drawing 

changes are required. The source of 

supply can be residual stock from the 

original manufacturer, shelf stock 

from distributers, sponsor-owned 

material, etc. Costs for packaging, 

storage, and transportation should be 

considered in the BCA for selecting 

resolutions. This is sometimes 

referred to as a life-of-type buy, 

bridge buy, or lifetime buy. 

For software, sufficient licensing 

and/or support is obtained for the life 

of need, assuming the life of need is 

short enough to ensure that the 

vendor will remain in business. 

On the basis of historical usage rates, it is 

determined that 165 diodes are required to sustain 

the system until it is decommissioned. Sufficient 

inventory of the discontinued item is then 

purchased from an approved distributor and stored 

for use as needed. 

A life-of-need buy can also be made during design 

or production. Production material and associated 

spares can be procured when an obsolescence 

issue occurs early in the life cycle. 

A license downgrade is negotiated with the 

software vendor, which enables the users to 

expand or extend authorized use of an older 

product by purchasing additional licenses of the 

latest version and applying those licenses to the 

older product until it is retired. 

A particular adhesive used in production of circuit 

cards went obsolete. A sufficient quantity of 

adhesive was purchased to meet demand until a 

new adhesive could be qualified. 

96
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 9. DMSMS Resolution Options, Definitions, and Examples 

Resolution Definition Examples 

Repair, 

refurbishment, or 

reclamation 

The obsolescence issue is resolved 

by doing one of the following: 

 Instituting a repair or refurbishment 

program for the existing item or 

assembly, whether through a depot 

repair, a repair contract with the 

original manufacturer, or support 

from a third party. 

 Instituting a reclamation program 

to reclaim items from marginal, 

out-of-service, or surplus materiel. 

Costs for restoring reclaimed 

materiel as a result of electrostatic 

discharge damage, handling 

damage, and heat damage from 

unsoldering should be considered. 

 Obtaining access to the software 

source code, development tools, 

and the human resource skills 

necessary to change it to ensure 

continued support. 

A program has sufficient items or assemblies to 

support the system, if they are refurbished. A 

private company is identified that has this 

capability, and a contract is awarded to repair these 

assets for the system’s remaining service life. 

Hybrids are salvaged from an earlier configuration 

of the NHA, repaired, and used for future repairs on 

higher assemblies. 

Because of scrap steel shortage, it was difficult to 

maintain a source for high explosive munitions 

bodies. A process was developed to decontaminate 

and mill surplus munitions projectiles. 

The original vendor allows the customer to 

purchase the source code and the development 

tools to maintain it and will provide software 

engineering support for a fee. 

Extension of 

production or 

support 

The supplier is incentivized to 

continue providing the obsolete items. 

This may involve long-term 

agreements to procure specific 

quantities of items. One-time costs 

may be associated with setting up 

this resolution. Those costs should be 

included in any cost and cost 

avoidance by being proactive 

calculations. 

For software, long-term licensing 

and/or support agreements are 

obtained. 

The DMT works with the manufacturer to resolve 

any obsolescence problems with a COTS 

assembly’s piece-parts or raw materials, so the 

original COTS assembly can still be manufactured. 

The government obtains the COTS assembly BOM 

from the OEM, resolves piece-part obsolescence, 

and then provides the needed parts to the OEM as 

government-furnished material to facilitate 

continued manufacture and repair. 

The DMT works with the manufacturer or software 

vendor to extend the warranty or support period, 

thus extending the useful life of the product. 

A third party is contracted to continue support on a 

software application. 

A vendor creates a custom item number that 

freezes hardware and firmware at a specific 

version/revision level to ensure that future supply 

meets the original requirements. 

97
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 9. DMSMS Resolution Options, Definitions, and Examples 

Resolution Definition Examples 

Simple 

substitute 

The item is replaced with an existing 

item that meets all requirements 

without modification to either the item 

or its NHA and requires only minimal 

qualification. Typically, this implies 

use of a commercial item or nondevelopmental item that is a fit/form/ 

function substitute. Associated costs 

are largely administrative. This is 

sometimes referred to as an 

alternate. 

The original item number from a company is 

purchased from a source not identified in control 

drawings; in other words, the item was purchased 

from a different vendor. The original oil specified in 

the drawings is no longer available. Another 

company makes oil with similar characteristics and 

was approved as a substitute with minimal 

evaluation. 

The TDP of an intrinsically suitable, but different, 

item (e.g., a more reliable version or an existing 

item) is evaluated. 

A rebadged COTS product is discontinued by its 

vendor, but the source item is still available from its 

OEM under a different part number. 

The deployed version of an operating system is no 

longer supported. The support version is installed 

as an upgrade and meets all of the current 

requirements. 

A previously emulated device (e.g., from DLA’s 

GEM program) is substituted for the original item. 

Currently, software is rehosted to operate correctly 

with new application hardware or software. 

Complex 

substitute 

A replacement item that has different 

specifications but requires no 

modification of the source product or 

the NHA, is researched and 

validated. The substitute may be the 

result of a redefined military 

requirement. 

An optical coupler approved in the source control 

drawing is no longer made. An engineering search 

finds four couplers with similar characteristics. After 

qualification, two are approved for the application. 

The suggested sources table in the source control 

drawing is changed to authorize the new items. 

The current operating system is obsolete. The 

replacement operating system does not meet all 

the specifications of the current version and must 

be thoroughly tested. 

A military requirement was restated or revised to 

allow for the use of a substitute item from a 

commercial source. 

Another software product is used to replace the 

obsolete software. 

A magnetic tape with an obsolete fire-resistant 

coating was replaced with a tape with a similar fireresistant coating that had to be fully tested and 

qualified before use. 

98
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 9. DMSMS Resolution Options, Definitions, and Examples 

Resolution Definition Examples 

Development of a 

new item or 

source 

A replacement product is developed 

that meets the requirements of the 

original product without affecting the 

NHA. Nonrecurring engineering or 

other development-related activities 

will likely be required. The new 

product may be developed by 

emulating, reverse engineering, 

designing a replacement based on 

the original manufacturing designs 

and processes, or designing a 

different product based on the original 

or new requirements. The 

manufacturing source for the new 

item may be the original manufacturer 

or a new source. 

A VME card is discontinued by its original 

manufacturer. Another manufacturer is contracted 

to purchase drawing packages, manufacturing 

equipment, and production rights to continue 

production of the card. 

A manufacturer is approached to purchase 

specifications and production rights to resume 

production of a mechanical item (e.g., a diesel 

engine) that was discontinued by the original 

manufacturer. 

The firmware for a circuit card is no longer available 

and must be rewritten using different tools. 

DLA’s GEM program creates a device that 

emulates the original device. 

The software application is redeveloped because of 

an obsolete compiler or obsolete modeling tools. 

A special fabrication project in an organic facility is 

initiated to develop and produce an item. 

Redesign–NHA The affected item’s NHA must be 

modified. Only the NHA is affected, 

and the new design will not affect 

anything at a higher level in the 

system. 

An obsolete component for which a viable F3 

replacement cannot be found requires a redesign 

of the circuit card on which the component is found. 

The operating system of a single board computer is 

obsolete and no longer supported by the 

manufacturer. Policy dictates that it can no longer 

be used on DoD systems. The new version of the 

software will not run on the existing hardware. A 

replacement board that runs the new version of the 

operating system is available and will not require 

changes to other equipment. Some of the 

associated software must be modified to 

accommodate the new operating system. 

A refrigeration system that used a banned Freon 

refrigerant had to be redesigned to use an 

approved refrigerant. 

Redesign–

complex/system 

replacement 

A major assembly redesign affects 

assemblies beyond the obsolete 

item’s NHA and may require that 

higher level assemblies, software, 

and interfaces be changed. 

Aircraft radar was replaced to use a different 

operating frequency. Many obsolescence issues 

were eliminated in the new design. 

The operating system of a server must be replaced 

due to policy changes. The new operating system 

will require hardware changes to multiple hardware 

and software configurations. 

A vehicle’s diesel engine became obsolete, 

requiring the replacement of the entire drive train 

for the vehicle, because the old transmission was 

not compatible with the new engine. 

Table 10 identifies the cost elements that apply to each resolution; “X” indicates a cost element that is 

likely to be part of the listed resolution and may need to be considered when evaluating costs. There may 

be some differences in the applicability of the DMSMS cost elements to the resolution options when 

software is an issue. Because the cost element terminology is very broad, the differences are small. 

99
SD-22 – January 2016 

However, no data exist to support whether an average cost estimate for a software resolution will be the 

same or different than the cost of a hardware resolution. 

Table 10. Cost Elements as Applied to DMSMS Resolution Options 

Existing material (logistics) 

Substitute 

(engineering) Redesign (engineering) 

Engineering, engineering data 

revision 

X X X X X 

Purchase of engineering, 

design, or technical data 

X X X X X 

Qualification of new items X X X X X 

Revision of test procedures X X X X X 

Software changes X X X X 

Start-up costs (after-market, 

etc.) 

X X X X X 

Testing X X X X X X 

Tooling, equipment, test 

equipment, or software 

X X X X X 

Computer programs/ 

documentation 

X X X X X X 

Interim support X X X 

Supply/provisioning data X X X X X 

Support/test equipment X X X X X 

Technical manuals X X X X X X 

Training/trainers X X X X X 

Item cost (optional) X X X X X 

Manpower (optional) X 

Spares (optional) X X X X 

Other (as required) X X X X X X meit dveorppA yu bdeen- of -ifeL

-

n

ish

tio

b

a

rfue r

clame

ir,

 r

a

t,

Rep

nem

 t

-

r

o

o

r

p

p

p

f osion

r su on

nxte

ctiou

E

d

 estitutbsule impS

 testitubsulex pCom

a 

ce

f 

r

o

u

 tn

so

e

 r

m

 o

lop

m

Deve

itew en

 lex/

tne

p

m

moc

lace

–

p

sign

er m

eRed

syste

NHA

– signeRed

Cost element 

6.3. Determine the Preferred DMSMS Resolution 

DMSMS management processes do not stand alone. They operate in the context of normal program 

office business processes. Therefore, determining which resolution to implement has two components. 

The first component is guided by the program office’s organizational structure, hierarchy, and chain of 

command; for example, all DMSMS management may be under the cognizance of a reliability and 

maintainability organization. The second component, which is the subject of this subsection, is 

methodological; its processes determine which DMSMS resolution options to recommend. 

100
SD-22 – January 2016 

The resolution determination process uses various outputs from monitoring and surveillance and impact 

assessments that determine if and when an issue will affect the operational availability of the system. 

Figure 17 illustrates the major activities and tasks of the resolution determination process. One important, 

initial activity in this process is to determine whether there is an external organization that is pursuing a 

resolution to a DMSMS issue in a manner that meets the program’s schedule and technical requirements. 

As long as the external resolution process meets all of the program’s requirements, then the program only 

needs to monitor that the resolution process is on track. Otherwise, the program should continue with the 

other major activities of the resolution process. 

The resolution process should also consider the requirements to transition from one program life-cycle 

phase or contract to another. For example, resolutions in the design phase may include short-term 

actions until a longer-term option can be implemented in the production phase. This complicates the 

process because the analysis may need to be conducted over multiple time increments (e.g., between 

now and the end of production and between the end of production and a planned technology insertion). 

101
SD-22 – January 2016 

Figure 17. DMSMS Resolution Determination Process 

102
SD-22 – January 2016 

103
SD-22 – January 2016 

If the impact assessment indicates that a resolution is needed, one or more of the resolutions listed in 

Table 9 can be applied regardless of whether the DMSMS problem is mechanical, material, software, or 

electronic in nature.78 While all of these resolution types apply to different item types, the frequency of use 

of a particular DMSMS resolution may differ depending on commodity type. Table 11 illustrates the 

distribution of resolution types by part commodity—electrical, electronics, and mechanical—as reflected 

in data collected through a 2014 Department of Commerce DMSMS Cost Survey. Although 

implementation79 may vary drastically for different types of issues, the overall resolution determination 

process is the same. Not all resolutions can be applied to a given DMSMS problem. Only those that can 

be applied are considered viable.80 For instance, most of the resolution options are not viable for a forged 

impeller body that has become obsolete; the only viable resolutions may be the identification of a new 

source or redesign. However, the process to determine the viable resolutions (often the most costeffective) is the same, whether the problem is a circuit card assembly or a specific chemical used in the 

manufacturing process that has become obsolete because of environmental restrictions. 

Table 11. Distribution of DMSMS Resolutions by Part Commodity81

DMSMS Resolution Electrical Electronics Mechanical Total 

Approved items 987 316 236 1,539 

Life-of-need buy 27 633 6 666

Simple substitute 190 1.233 77 1,500 

Complex substitute 34 331 45 410

Extension of production or support 27 68 3 98

Repair, refurbishment, or reclamation 1 38 1 40

Development of a new item or source 14 103 10 127

Redesign–NHA 2 132 4 138

Redesign–complex/system 

replacement 

12 31 1 44

Total 1,294 2,885 383 4,562 

Percentage of Share 28.4% 63.2% 8.4% 100% 

 

78 The National Defense Stockpile should be a consideration for a DMSMS issue relating to raw materials. 

The raw materials may already be stockpiled, or they may be added to the stockpile in the future. For 

more information, see the Strategic and Critical Materials Stockpiling Act (50 U.S.C. §98 et seq.) and 

Strategic and Critical Materials 2011 Report on Stockpile Requirements, issued by the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, January 2011. 

79 Technology roadmaps can provide information that influences options for implementing different 

resolutions. 

80 All requirements (performance, safety, security, etc.) must be met for a resolution to be viable. A 

viable resolution must also address all second-order derivative effects. 

81 Defense Standardization Program Office, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material 

Shortages: Cost Metrics, February 2015, p. 12. 

104
SD-22 – January 2016 

As resolutions become more complex, their implementation becomes more costly.82 The list of viable 

resolutions is built by going through Table 9 from top to bottom and determining the feasibility of each 

option. Many of the factors (e.g., near-term cost, total life cycle cost, level in the system, mission factors, 

planned technology refreshes or upgrades, results of impact assessments, and terms and conditions of 

contract) used to analyze the operational impact should be used to help determine which resolutions are 

viable. The overall resolution determination process should consider all viable resolutions at the lowest 

level of indenture possible and, if the impact assessment indicates that a resolution at a higher level of 

assembly may be preferable, at higher-level assemblies. In some cases, a resolution at a higher level will 

have a higher ROI, because it may resolve numerous issues at once or improve reliability significantly. 

Section 2.3.1 discussed DMSMS design considerations from the perspective of design concepts that tend 

to reduce future DMSMS costs. There also are design considerations that impact the feasibility of 

resolutions. For example:

 Real-time software. Many times, defense products use software that performs a real-time 

function. Often this is software for signal processing or signal analysis that has a specific time 

available to accomplish a specific task. This means that the failure to complete the signal 

processing in the available time means that information is lost, or worse, the system will crash. 

DMSMS issues can often have a profound impact on the portability of real-time software. Even 

when the real-time properties of various software modules are well documented, and latencies of 

interrupted service requirements are documented, the need to use a new and different processor 

or components with different memory speed due to obsolescence of an earlier or different 

processor component can result in considerable impact to real-time performance. Furthermore, 

real-time performance validation can be extremely difficult, particularly when real-time failures 

only occur under rare combinations of interrupt conditions. Whether a new processor performs 

slower or faster, the interaction with external interfaces is certain to be different, and it is 

occasionally difficult for drivers to fully compensate for speed changes. It is essential that the 

design, development, and maintenance of software systems that have real-time components 

maintain very accurate analysis and models of system timing so that as processors and 

technology evolve, the real-time performance can be easily validated, and software can be 

ported. There are also important implications with respect to maintaining an understanding of 

execution time statistics of each software module, and the corresponding understanding of 

selected compiler optimizations and coding style, in order to maintain real-time performance 

when DMSMS issues cause design updates. 

Validation and production testing. Product testing advances today include many sophisticated capabilities 

to assess analog and digital subsystem performance. When a DMSMS issue occurs, the resolution may 

impact the means for testing. Today’s digital subsystems are tested with Joint Test Action Group and 

other interface validation. If a design or redesign causes interface changes, or timing changes, there are 

likely to be impacts to both validation tests and production line tests. It is essential to assure that 

testability of validation and production line tests remain resilient to these changes. This is especially 

important so that counterfeit components and marginal designs are quickly detected, identified, and 

corrected as part of a DMSMS redesign. To assure this, the testing process must retain documentation of 

traceability between what functions are being tested and how the tests relate to requirements, so that 

system behavior changes after a DMSMS redesign can be properly understood and validated. When the 

test equipment itself is affected by a DMSMS issue, validation considerations go beyond testing the 

 

82 A life-of-need buy may appear to be the least costly and simplest option to implement. However, 

before this resolution may be used, a number of obstacles must be addressed. Per 10 U.S.C. § 2213, a 

waiver process must be used to procure goods that will result in more than 2 years of operating stock. 

Also, contractors cannot typically be obligated to procure stock beyond the life of their contract, so the 

government would need to procure and maintain a stock of the needed item. Also, because reliability and 

end of system life are estimates, accurately determining the quantity of an item to buy is nearly 

impossible. These obstacles may result in the determination that a life-of-need buy is not an option unless 

it would be used as an interim resolution until another alternative is implemented. 

105
SD-22 – January 2016 

function of the equipment. To deal with the potential for malware being introduced into the test equipment, 

validation should ensure that the equipment is performing all of the tests in the way that they should be 

performed. This is beyond the scope of typical validation testing. 

Before any analysis of resolutions to identify the most cost-effective approach, the engineering 

representative on the DMT must ensure that those resolutions satisfy all technical requirements. 

All viable options (including the status quo) are then analyzed further using either an AoA or a BCA to 

determine which resolution or set of resolutions gains the best ROI.83 A BCA is a formal, structured 

approach for examining the costs, benefits, and risks of different alternatives. It requires background 

research and data collection and management. It also requires a thorough understanding of the quality 

and completeness of the data and of any assumptions made. 

The standard criterion for comparing alternatives on an economic basis is net present value (NPV), the 

discounted monetized value of expected net benefits (benefits minus costs). NPV is computed by 

assigning monetary values to benefits and costs, discounting future benefits and costs using an 

appropriate discount rate, and subtracting the sum total of discounted costs from the sum total of 

discounted benefits. For DMSMS resolution alternatives, the one with the highest NPV (e.g., lowest lifecycle cost) is preferred, because the benefit of mitigating the DMSMS condition—that is, avoiding 

negative impacts on system operational readiness—is the same for each alternative. 

An AoA is a simplified version of a BCA. An AoA does not require the amount of detailed analysis of a 

BCA to determine the most viable resolution. Typically, an AoA is used in place of a BCA when a low cost 

and risk of the resolution can be estimated accurately up front without an in-depth analysis. 

A program must be able to calculate resolution costs at an acceptable level of fidelity to perform an AoA 

or BCA. To make a decision on which resolution to pursue, the cost calculations do not necessarily need 

to be exact; they just have to be consistent enough to establish an ordinal ranking. To ensure that the 

funding is sufficient to support the implementation of the selected resolution, a program will need better 

fidelity. Table 12 shows average costs associated with implementing each of the DMSMS resolution 

options. These data were compiled from submissions to a 2014 Department of Commerce survey of 

government and commercial DMSMS programs.84 While it is preferable for a program to estimate specific 

costs for resolutions, the costs cited in the table can be used to make preliminary cost estimates when a 

program is gathering more detailed information. 

Table 12. Average Cost Associated with Implementing Each DMSMS Resolution Option 

 

83 A future version of this document will include average values for DMSMS cost elements to 

calculate ROI. 

84 Defense Standardization Program Office, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material 

Shortages: Cost Metrics, February 2015. 

106
SD-22 – January 2016 

Resolution option Average85 

Approved item $1,047 

Life-of-need buy $5,328 

Simple substitute $12,805 

Complex substitute $25,867 

Extension of production or support $25,930 

Repair, refurbishment, or reclamation $66,18586 

Development of a new item or source $667,209 

Redesign–NHA $1,112,528 

Redesign–complex/system replacement $10,473,148 

Appendix L can be used, with caution, to modify these averages based on more specific circumstances. 

The appendix is a three-part table that contains the complete results from the Department of Commerce 

survey. The rows of the table show the above resolution options subdivided by environment (aviation, 

ground, shipboard, space, and undersea). The columns show the commodity type (electrical, mechanical 

and electronics) subdivided by item type (assembly, component, raw material, and software). Entries in 

the table are average cost and sample size. Little confidence should be placed in entries with a low 

sample size. 

Both an AoA and a BCA should account for life-cycle costs for each applicable time increment.87 When 

possible, multiple resolutions sequenced over time for implementation through the end of need should be 

considered. This allows a program time to implement the resolution with the best ROI if barriers exist at 

the time of notification. For example, if a circuit card assembly with an ASIC is obsolete, and the impact 

on operational availability is projected to occur within 6 months (based on stock, demand, and reliability 

information), the DMT may determine that the resolution with the best ROI is to develop a new source of 

supply. However, if developing a new source will take at least 1 year after qualification, the DMT will need 

another resolution to cover the development time; for example, if stock is still available, then a life-of-need 

buy could be implemented. 

The cost avoidance by being proactive is also a factor in both an AoA and a BCA. The cost avoidance by 

being proactive as it relates to DMSMS resolutions is usually defined as the difference between the cost 

of the selected resolution and the next viable resolution. For example, if the only two viable resolutions 

are a complex substitute or a redesign, then the cost avoidance by being proactive would be the 

difference between the estimated redesign costs and the complex substitute costs. However, as another 

example, if a complex substitute, the development of a new source, and a redesign were all viable 

resolutions, then the cost avoidance by being proactive would be the difference between developing a 

new source and using a complex substitute. As mentioned in Section 3.4.3, this approach to estimating 

the cost avoidance by being proactive is not without complications. 

Once the program has identified the implementation cost for the viable resolutions, the program can 

calculate the breakeven points and ROI to determine which resolution is the most cost-effective. That 

 

85 Resolution costs adjusted for inflation using a suggestive factor of 1.8 percent per “National 

Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2016—Office of the Under Secretary for Defense (Comptroller),”

Table 5-2: Pay and Inflation Rate Assumptions—Outlays, p. 54. 

86 In addition to an inflation adjustment, this figure corrects a typographical error that was included in 

the February 2015 version of the SD-22. 

87 For a life-of-need buy, the DMT should consider whether it must purchase a minimum quantity. If 

that quantity is greater than the expected need, the program should try to identify other potential users as 

partners. 

107
SD-22 – January 2016 

resolution, however, may not be the best option when risk is taken into account. All identified risks 

associated with the resolutions should be captured and a proper weighting factor should be associated 

with each risk. Some risks will require a higher weighting factor than others. The following are among the 

risks to consider: 









Technical—risk associated with the ability to develop or implement a resolution while still 

maintaining performance within the specification 

Supply chain—risk associated with the financial viability of the resolution provider that will be 

maintaining the capability 

Financial—risk associated with the availability of funding required to implement a resolution within 

a specified time period 

Schedule—risk associated with implementing a resolution before operational availability is 

affected. 

Application of these risks in the decision-making process is subjective. In some instances, a high-cost 

resolution with low risk is preferable to a low-cost resolution with high risk. For example, testing and 

qualifying an alternate item that uses technology similar to that in the obsolete item may not be the best 

choice, because there may soon be a shortage of that alternate. Instead, it may be better to develop a 

substitute item using more current technology. 

When the DMT has determined the best resolution, the PM must decide whether it is acceptable and 

determine whether the funds and resources are available for implementing that resolution (Section 7.1 

addresses estimating resolution costs to inform program budgeting programming). In some cases, 

feedback from the PM may require the DMT to repeat the resolution determination process. For example, 

the PM may impose new resource or time constraints or may even bring up the possibility of a new 

product improvement effort. 

7. Implement: Implementation of DMSMS Resolutions 

The DMT’s role does not end when a PM decides which resolution option to pursue. The final step of the 

DMSMS management process is implementation. In the Implement step, the DMT should be involved in 

two final processes: securing a source of funding for implementing the preferred resolution and ensuring 

that the actions required to implement the preferred resolution are taken. 

In some cases, contracts with the prime contractor (during design and production) or a logistics provider 

(during sustainment) may include a requirement for the contractor to fund DMSMS resolutions. (Appendix 

C contains more information on contracting.) This situation is complex: 





The definition of “end-of-life” can differ depending on one’s perspective. If the contract requires 

the contractor to buy additional items to resolve a DMSMS issue, the contractor will normally be 

concerned only with demands up to the end of the contract period of performance, whereas the 

government will likely be interested in addressing an issue through the “end-of-need.” Unless the 

government specifically defines this, it can remain open to interpretation. Depending on its 

relationship with the government, the contractor may be willing to support the program “on risk” to 

provide resolutions beyond the contract period of performance. The government should not 

assume that this will always be the case, nor should it expect the contractor to buy enough items 

to last until the end of need without additional funding. 

If the contract requires the contractor to resolve DMSMS issues, the contractor may not fund the 

most cost-effective resolution from the program’s perspective. The contractor will determine the 

resolution based on its own business case calculations. However, depending on its relationship 

with the government, the contractor may factor the government’s long-term needs into the 

calculation, assuming the contractor is made aware of those needs. If the program included, in its 

RFP, a requirement for the contractor to fund the most cost-effective resolution from a program 

office perspective, the contractor would be forced to bid a much higher price to compensate for 

risk. Consequently, the program should be prepared to negotiate with the contractor on which 

resolution option to implement and should be prepared to provide additional funding if warranted. 

108
SD-22 – January 2016 

These negotiations are enabled by a strong government-industry relationship and full government 

awareness of the DMSMS services provided by the contractor. 

As discussed in Section 2, effective technology management will help minimize the cost and readiness 

impacts of DMSMS issues. 

7.1. Secure DMSMS Resolution Funding 

The best way to secure DMSMS resolution funding is to plan and budget in advance. Although the 

program is responsible for comprehensive planning for DMSMS resources and securing implementation 

funding, the DMT is often asked to assist. A program may not know the specific DMSMS problems that 

will occur in a given year, but experience has proven that DMSMS issues are inevitable and thus a 

program will face multiple DMSMS problems annually. Furthermore, experience has proven that failure to 

mitigate those problems will lead to unacceptable performance, degradation of system reliability and 

availability, and increased costs. 

Knowing that it will face any number of DMSMS issues in a given year, a program needs to be in the 

position to pay for resolutions as they arise. To do so, the DMT can assist program leadership in 

developing its budget and program submissions to be able to fund DMSMS resolutions as well as to 

ensure that obsolescence is incorporated in the program’s technology roadmap funding.

In addition to developing an estimate of the costs to address obsolescence, a program may also need to 

gather additional information to support the importance of having funding for robust DMSMS management 

and to implement resolutions as required. ROI and cost avoidance by being proactive metrics can be 

used to gain support for the budgets necessary to resolve expected problems. These metrics may be 

used to project future cost avoidance due to the implementation of the resolutions. If decision makers can 

be persuaded to accept the estimate of both future cost and future cost avoidance by being proactive, the 

estimates can be used to offset (to some extent) the cost of implementing the resolutions.88

Consequently, future budgets may not need to be as high as originally estimated. Because the cost 

avoidance by being proactive will occur sometime in the future, near-term budgets will not be able to take 

credit for any offsets. 

While there may be some uncertainty about the exact numbers and types of resolutions a program will 

face in a given year, a number of approaches can be used to assist in estimating resolution costs and, 

therefore, inform the program on what is required to support resolution funding. Table 13 summarizes 

different approaches that could be pursued to estimate resolution funding. These approaches are listed 

by the extent of analytical rigor in deriving the estimate (with the most rigorous at the top). Each program 

will have to make its own assessment regarding the level of effort, and degree of difficulty, it is willing to 

pursue to estimate DMSMS costs to inform program budgeting and programming. A key consideration is 

the amount of rigor necessary to successfully defend the funds. 

Table 13. Description of DMSMS Resolution Cost Estimation Approaches 

Approach Description 

Estimate by individual item Analyze specific items to estimate discontinuation time 

Estimate by technology segment Analyze technology segments and what is known of their lifespans to 

determine when and where obsolescence is predicted to impact a design 

Estimate by prior trends Calculate and use the historical numbers and trends for each resolution 

type 

Estimate by annualized 

averages 

Calculate the average of what has been spent annually on resolutions 

Estimate by expert opinion Use subject matter expertise to estimate the numbers and types of 

resolutions to be encountered 

 

88 This is more difficult when different sources of money are involved. 

109
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 13. Description of DMSMS Resolution Cost Estimation Approaches 

 

Approach Description 

The first two approaches generate estimates of the number of resolutions required. Additional analysis is 

required to determine what type of resolutions they will be and then to apply a cost to them. 

Estimating by individual item requires a detailed understanding of the items constituting a system design, 

the requirements of a program’s production and sustainment plans, and forecasts of when specific items 

can be expected to become obsolete. Because of the data intensity required to support analysis at the 

item level, this DMSMS resolution cost estimation approach has the greatest degree of difficulty of the 

approaches summarized in Table 13. It is also the most analytically rigorous. 

A slightly less data- and labor-intensive approach is the implementation of a technology segment 

analysis. This analysis looks at broader technology segments to identify what is known of the lifespans of 

the types of technology segments incorporated into a particular design. With the lifespan information for 

the technology segments, a program can forecast when and where obsolescence could be expected to 

affect the design and, therefore, can plan and program for dealing with that anticipated obsolescence. 

This approach may be sufficient to support a program’s estimates to inform budgeting and programming, 

but it may not be sufficient to support technology road-mapping. 

A third option for estimating DMSMS resolution costs uses trend data. This approach could be particularly 

useful for a well-established program or a new program for a system similar to that developed by other 

programs. This cost estimation approach uses data on the historical number of and associated trends in 

obsolescence issues encountered by a program and the number and types of resolutions required to 

address obsolescence issues on a year-to-year basis. A program in sustainment can use historical data 

to develop an expected scenario for annual DMSMS problems to be resolved. To develop a scenario for 

DMSMS issues expected during design or production, the program should consider the contractor’s nextgeneration roadmaps, information from manufacturers, the age of the technology in active electronic 

items, and relevant experience with similar systems. 

The annualized average uses historical data (from either the program or a similar program) to calculate 

an average of what has been spent on DMSMS resolutions annually. 

Finally, a program could adopt a DMSMS resolution cost estimation approach that relies entirely on 

subject matter expertise to forecast the number and types of resolutions to be encountered. Assuming 

that the program has access to such SMEs, this would be the cost estimation approach with the least 

degree of difficulty to implement and the lowest degree of analytical rigor. 

Despite diligent efforts to apply an appropriate cost estimation method for the program, stakeholders 

understand that funding requirements for DMSMS resolutions and corresponding budget requests, which 

are based on the best available data, will almost always be either too high or too low. Because DMSMS 

management is not a standalone process, there will be opportunities to use extra funding for other 

reliability, maintainability, or supportability issues. If program resources are not sufficient to implement a 

preferred resolution, other alternatives are possible. The remainder of this section summarizes a number 

of resources that a program could pursue to assist in funding a required DMSMS resolution when there is 

no planned or funded budget. 

One such alternative is DoD’s VE program. VE is an organized, systematic approach that analyzes the 

functions of systems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies to ensure they achieve their essential 

functions at the lowest life-cycle cost, consistent with required performance, reliability, quality, and 

safety.89 Typically, the implementation of the VE process increases performance, reliability, quality, 

89 Office of Management and Budget, Value Engineering, Circular A-131, January 2013 (available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a131). 

110
SD-22 – January 2016 

safety, durability, effectiveness, or other desirable characteristics. VE has been used to mitigate DMSMS 

issues from two perspectives: funding and methodological.90

From a funding perspective, a VE incentive (VEI) clause is included in most supply/service contracts 

when the contract price exceeds $150,000. A VE change proposal (VECP) is a proposal submitted to the 

government by the contractor in accordance with the VEI clause. A VECP proposes a change to the 

contract that, if accepted and implemented, provides an eventual, overall cost savings to the government 

with a substantial share of that savings contributing to the contractor’s profit. It provides a vehicle to 

reduce acquisition and operating costs, while increasing the contractor’s rate of return. Typically, the 

contractor pays the nonrecurring costs associated with the VECP and is reimbursed from the savings. To 

ensure that savings can be shared, the VECP must meet two primary requirements: 





It must require a change to the current contract under which it is submitted. 

It must provide an overall cost savings to the government after being accepted and implemented. 

(A VECP could result in increased unit cost but reduced O&S cost. Thus, there would be an 

overall savings to DoD.) 

The key takeaway associated with the funding perspective is that the contractor has a profit-based 

incentive to resolve obsolescence issues earlier. Without this incentive, proactive issue identification may 

not occur and, consequently, resolutions may be more expensive. These concepts could be applied to a 

life-of-need buy if the contractor would use its own resources to buy items and then sell them back to the 

government when needed. This could be especially valuable if the government were not able to obtain 

the necessary resources in a timely manner.91

From a methodological perspective, the VE process can augment the Analyze step in DMSMS risk 

management, as illustrated in the following example: 

Obsolescence issues emerged for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense missile. The issues involved 

multiple subcontractors and various components. The major and minor redesign efforts recommended to 

address the obsolescence problems would have resulted in high costs and negative schedule impacts for 

the program office. The DMT used VE to evaluate each redesign proposal and determine if other 

mitigation efforts could be employed to overcome the obsolescence issues. A VECP was implemented to 

mitigate the obsolescence and minimize redesign cost without adverse schedule impacts. The total 

3-year cost avoidance by being proactive was calculated to be $21.2 million. 

Several external funding programs, at both the DoD and service levels, represent other potential resource 

options for DMSMS resolutions.92,93 Most of these funding sources have a periodic project solicitation, but 

some do not. Projects may or may not be accepted off cycle. In some cases, the solicitation is directed at 

government program offices; in other cases, the solicitation is directed at industry. The focus areas for the 

project solicitations are defined by the funding programs themselves, on the basis of their understanding 

of DoD needs. Although a program with DMSMS issues can communicate its needs to the funding 

programs, to obtain funding, the proposed DMSMS resolution must be aligned with the mission, 

requirements, restrictions, and goals of the funding programs. Key external funding programs are as 

follows: 

 

90 See SD-24, Value Engineering: A Guidebook of Best Practices and Tools, June 2011 (available at 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/SD-24-VE-Guidebook.pdf), Chapter 8. 

91 When a PDN is anticipated but has not been released, it may be possible to adapt this approach to 

critical items that are expensive to redesign and test. Specific arrangements to do this would have to be 

negotiated in advance with the program office, the contracting officer, and industry. 

92 Programs that apply to only a single service are not included. 

93 DMSMS practitioners should also be aware of congressionally established programs that are not 

included in the DoD Presidential budget, for example, the Industrial Base Innovation Fund, the Rapid 

Innovation Fund, and the Defense Rapid Innovation Program. Such congressional programs are not 

discussed in this document. 

111
SD-22 – January 2016 





DoD and service manufacturing technology (ManTech) program. The ManTech program is 

codified in Title 10 §2521 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) as a requirement for each military 

service and component.94 This is DoD’s primary program for investing in next-generation 

manufacturing processes, materials, or technologies, but it also has the mission of “development 

and application of advanced manufacturing technologies and processes that will reduce the 

acquisition and supportability costs of defense systems and reduce manufacturing and repair 

cycle times across the life cycles of such systems.” Thus, DMSMS resolutions that require 

producibility improvements or a new manufacturing capability can seek funding through 

ManTech, particularly if repair cycle time and support costs can be reduced. The DoD ManTech 

program is a joint service research and development (R&D) program with appropriations in OSD, 

Army, Navy, Air Force, and DLA. Each service or agency programs its investments separately but 

plans jointly through the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel. Annual solicitations 

from OSD and each service or agency are released, and all proposals must contain clear 

transition paths and have service support from the transition target PM. 

Defense Production Act Title III program. This program’s mission is to “create assured, 

affordable, and commercially viable production capabilities and capacities for items essential for 

national defense.”95 Production capabilities that would otherwise be inadequate are transformed 

to support the material requirements of defense programs in a timely and affordable manner. Title 

III focuses on materials and items that could be used across a broad spectrum of defense 

systems. The capabilities of defense systems depend upon the availability of materials and 

technologies. 

The program can respond to material shortages using unique authorities to accomplish four objectives: 









Create, maintain, expand, protect, restore, or modernize the production capabilities of domestic 

suppliers whose technologies and products are critical to the nation’s security.

Increase the supply, improve the quality, and reduce the cost of advanced materials and 

technologies. 

Reduce U.S. dependency on foreign sources of supply for vital materials and technologies. 

Strengthen the economic and technological competitiveness of the U.S. defense industrial base. 

Title III provides a set of broad economic authorities, found nowhere else in law, to incentivize the 

creation, expansion, or preservation of domestic manufacturing capabilities for technologies, items, and 

materials needed to meet national security requirements. The goal is not the production of materials or 

items themselves, but the creation or expansion of the industrial capacity to produce these items and 

materials. Title III mechanisms can include 











purchases and purchase commitments (not commonly used), 

installation of production equipment, 

development of substitutes (most commonly used via R&D contracts), or 

loans and loan guarantees (not used since 1992 by memorandum of understanding with the DoD 

General Counsel). 

Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Fund (IBASF) projects. The IBASF is part of DoD’s 

efforts to fortify the industrial base, particularly with regard to DoD’s supply chain. To that end, the 

focus of the IBASF is to “preserve or improve the [industrial base’s] capability to sustain 

 

94 For more information, see https://www.dodmantech.com/. 

95 For more information, see http://dpatitle3.com/dpa_db/. 

112
SD-22 – January 2016 

readiness by mitigating risks and issues which diminish industrial capabilities.”

96 IBASF projects 

are intended to support “last resort” efforts when it would prove costly, difficult, or perhaps even 

impossible to restore the capability, skill, or manufacturing process to produce a required defense 

system or item within a defense system. Criteria used to support IBASF project selection are as 

follows: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

Fragility and criticality of the capability97

Existence of a plan to preserve, transform, or innovate an existing capability that has a 

strong likelihood of being required within the next 5 years 

Likelihood that the capability will be lost if the project is not funded 

Overall cost of undertaking a project to preserve the capability in comparison to the cost 

of having to reestablish the capability that has been lost 

Number of projects supported by the capability; those supporting numerous programs or 

services take precedence over those supporting a single program.98

Guidance for the submission of proposals for consideration for FY15 projects indicated 

that total funding for a proposed project should not exceed $2 million.99

 Foreign Comparative Testing (FCT) program. The FCT program’s mission is to test items and 

technologies from foreign allies with a high-technology readiness level to determine whether the 

items could satisfy U.S. military requirements or address mission-area shortcomings and could do 

so more quickly and economically than would otherwise be possible.100 The program has reaped 

substantial savings by avoiding R&D costs, lowering procurement costs, reducing risk for major 

acquisition programs, and accelerating the fielding of equipment critical to the readiness and safety 

of U.S. operating forces. Although the aim of the FCT program is to improve the U.S. Armed 

Forces’ operational performance, this leveraging of foreign R&D has benefited the U.S. taxpayer. In 

addition, the FCT program has served as a catalyst for industry teaming arrangements, which have 

been productive for both U.S. and foreign industries in an increasingly competitive global market, 

helping to build a robust U.S. defense industrial base. Foreign items are nominated for inclusion in 

the FCT program by a sponsoring organization within DoD. The OSD Comparative Technology 

Office funds testing and evaluation; the military services fund all procurements that result from a 

successful test. DMSMS resolutions that have foreign involvement can use this program to qualify 

technology or items for procurement. 

Defense Acquisition Challenge (DAC) program. The DAC program, initiated by the 2003 Defense 

Authorization Act, provides opportunities for introducing innovative and cost-saving commercial 

 

96 Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, 

memorandum, “Call for FY15 Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Fund (IBASF) Projects,” January 

24, 2013, p. 1. 

97 The fragility and criticality criteria are used by DoD’s Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy 

Office to prioritize the capabilities and sectors of the industrial base on which to focus its efforts. The 

criticality portion of the assessment considers factors such as (1) the degree to which there is a 

commercial market for the capability; (2) the extent to which any specialized skills, equipment, or facilities 

are required or related to the capability; (3) the existence or necessity of defense-specific requirements; 

(4) the impact given the time it would take to restore the capability once lost; and (5) consideration of any 

alternatives. The fragility portion of the assessment looks at (1) the financial stability of the current source 

for the capability, (2) DoD business versus business from other customers for the current source for the 

capability, (3) other sources that exist within the market sector, and (4) the existence of a dependency on 

a foreign source for the capability. 

98 Enclosure 1—Project Proposal Submission Guidance. 

99 Ibid. 

100 For more information, see https://cto.acqcenter.com/. 

113
SD-22 – January 2016 

technologies or products into DoD acquisition programs.101 Furthermore, the DAC program is especially 

designed to give small and medium-sized companies the opportunity to introduce new technologies and 

inject innovation into DoD programs. To do so, the DAC program provides any person or activity, within or 

outside DoD, the opportunity to propose alternatives, known as “challenge proposals,” to existing DoD 

programs that could improve performance, affordability, manufacturability, or operational capability of the 

systems acquired by that program. The program can fund the selection, testing, and insertion of the 

production-ready technologies into DoD systems, but must prove cost savings and readiness 

improvements, which would include many DMSMS efforts. The DAC program is focused on reducing lifecycle or procurement costs, enhancing standardization and interoperability, promoting competition by 

qualifying alternative sources, and improving the U.S. military industrial base. The program uses annual 

solicitations to request challenge proposals, which usually require a government and industry partner to 

ensure successful transition. The DAC program requires a commitment from the program of record to 

procure the technology if the proposed challenge alternative is successfully developed and tested. The 

DAC is currently finishing up projects under contract; it is unfunded for new projects. 





DLA sustaining engineering program. DLA Land and Maritime’s sustaining engineering program is a 

means to secure funding for proposed efforts to upgrade items of supply; address obsolescence, 

item-level reliability, and maintainability issues; or develop new or improved items to replace existing 

inventory.102 Sustaining engineering proposals are judged on the basis of the extent to which they do 

the following: 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Involve an item managed by DLA Land and Maritime 

Have demonstrated potential for ROI of at least 10:1 over the anticipated life cycle of the 

system 

Make a positive impact on operational readiness 

Make a positive impact on administrative or procurement lead-time 

Make a positive impact on item demand 

Make a positive impact on unit price 

Make a positive impact on overall cost of ownership of the supported end item or life 

cycle 

Reduce field or depot maintenance actions 

Improve competitive position and sourcing issues. 

Army, Navy, and Air Force working capital funds (WCFs). WCFs are revolving funds used to operate 

each service’s supply system. The funds generate adequate revenue to cover the full costs of their 

operations and to finance their continuing operations. WCF logistical operations projects may be used 

to resolve supportability deficiencies that result in increased cost or mission degradation. Examples of 

the beneficial results of such projects are mitigation of obsolescence; improvement of reliability, 

maintainability, and supportability; and reduction of the life-cycle costs of secondary items. Each 

service has different mechanisms for obtaining WCF resources: 

o

o

The Air Force has no Air Force-wide programs.103

The Navy has a logistics engineering change proposal (LECP) program. Projects must be 

related to reliability or maintainability and designed to reduce support costs while 

maintaining or improving safety and performance. The project must break even in 7 

 

101 Ibid. 

102 For more information, contact dla.land.and.maritime.value.engineering@dla.mil. 

103 For more information, an organization should contact its own Air Force WCF manager. 

114
SD-22 – January 2016 

years. If the project is selected, the LECP program will cover the costs of the engineering 

change proposal (ECP).104

The Army has four different types of WCF projects, each with different criteria:105 o









The Operating and Support Cost Reduction (OSCR) program is designed to 

“save the field money” by reducing secondary item acquisition costs, extending 

the life of the item, and reducing the number of events (removals or repairs) and 

the cost per event. OSCR promotes life-cycle cost savings and avoidance in the 

field by redesigning, prototyping, and testing spare parts for fielded systems. 

OSCR projects involve an individual item or assembly of items, prototype, or test. 

The program will not fund production or implementation of kits, nor will it fund 

studies. Eligibility for the program requires a validated economic analysis. 

The Reliability Improvement program is a continuous process to look for 

opportunities to decrease demand, improve operations, and improve reliability. 

Projects must provide immediate help to the soldier and must show an ROI. This 

program will not fund production and studies. 

The Obsolescence program is designed to mitigate obsolescence; improve 

reliability, maintainability, and supportability; or reduce the life-cycle cost of 

secondary items. Projects must provide an ROI. This program will not fund 

production, implementation of kits, and studies. 

The Product Improvement Pilot program provides funding for product 

improvements such as improving reliability and maintainability, extending useful 

life, enhancing safety, and lowering maintenance costs. This program cannot be 

used to significantly change the performance envelope of an end item, and 

individual item costs may not exceed $1 million. 

 Aviation Component Improvement Program (AvCIP). AvCIP applies to the Navy and Air Force. Within 

the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), AvCIP deals with common and unique avionics on inproduction and fielded systems. It can fund nonrecurring engineering activities such as redesign or 

modification, prototype development, T&E, integration, and technical documentation in partnership 

with the Naval Supply Systems Command for repairable items and with DLA for consumable items. 

To qualify for funding, a project must address a critical near-term issue concerning reliability, 

maintainability, or DMSMS; must result in cost avoidance by being proactive; and must achieve 

significant gains in warfighting capability or readiness.106 (No evidence exists to indicate that AvCIP 

will be used by the Air Force for a DMSMS issue.) 

7.2. Implement DMSMS Resolution 

Upon acceptance and funding, the case enters the implementation phase. This phase should follow the 

program’s standard process for updating configurations and engineering modifications. Some changes 

may be largely clerical and not require a specified process for updates, while other changes will require a 

formal change process. For instance, most updates that affect major configuration changes or 

engineering modifications flow through the appropriate level of the ECP process. The standard ECP 

process ensures that all changes and qualifications satisfy the program’s requirements.

It is usually a mistake for the DMT to assume that the program’s standard processes will be problem free. 

As a best practice, the DMT should be involved in the following ways during implementation: 

 

104 For more information, an organization should contact its Naval Supply Systems Command LECP 

manager. 

105 For more information, an organization should contact its manager for each of the programs. 

106 For more information, contact the NAVAIR AvCIP program manager. 

115
SD-22 – January 2016 













Ensure that all stakeholders understand their roles and responsibilities for implementation. These 

roles and responsibilities should have been established when the DMT was formed. 

Ensure that the implementation steps are defined. 

Verify that appropriate technical actions (e.g., qualification of the new item or procurement of the 

item) were successfully carried out. 

Monitor the process. 

Obtain feedback on the project status to ensure maintenance of full operational availability during 

implementation. If the project is behind schedule, the DMT may be required to determine 

supplemental mitigation actions. 

Update BOMs being monitored to reflect the configuration changes once the project is completed. 

In some cases, the DMT may have difficulty performing these functions. A champion in the program office 

is critical to implementation success. The champion should be at a high enough level to demand attention 

and be knowledgeable about the importance of an obsolescence program to take ownership of it and 

justify it to program leaders. The champion is often the catalyst that brings all the functional disciplines 

together toward the common goal of managing the availability of the program and is the person to resolve 

difficulties faced by the DMT in carrying out its DMSMS management responsibilities. 

In some cases, the DMT is asked for advice on procedures to deal with issues that arise during 

implementation. Below are examples of some issues, along with some considerations about ways to 

resolve them: 











Improving the priority of DMSMS management with the contracting officer. The DMT should invite the 

contracting officer to its meetings and explain his or her roles and responsibilities. The DMT should 

ensure that the contracting officer understands what is needed and the associated urgency. 

Buying in advance of need. According to 31 U.S.C §1502 (a), the balance of an appropriation or fund, 

limited for obligation to a definite period, is available only for payment of expenses properly incurred 

during the period of availability or to complete contracts properly made within that period of availability 

and obligated consistent with §1501 of this title. The appropriation of funds is not available for 

expenditure for a period beyond the period otherwise authorized by law. A “bona fide need” statement 

must be documented for the General Counsel’s office. That statement should explain the DMSMS 

situation and describe how and why the resolution option was determined. Limitation on the 

acquisition of excess supplies, 10 U.S.C. §2213, may also be an issue. That section of public law also 

provides the basis for exceptions to the limitation. 

Procuring sufficient stock to end of need. This is a straightforward calculation involving the use of the 

Poisson distribution with the appropriate confidence limits, operating tempo, number of units in 

service, and failure rates (either actual or predicted). At issue is the uncertainty in the input. 

Determining the appropriate contract vehicle. A contract must be in place with the organization that 

will implement the resolution (e.g., the organization performing the nonrecurring engineering or the 

organization that will sell the items). Restrictions exist on the use of all appropriations. In some cases, 

additional procurement funds are necessary; in others, research, development, test, and evaluation 

funding is required for redesign, material substitution, or qualification of a new source. The 

contracting office can provide advice on this subject. 

Managing inventory. Some issues are associated with receiving, inspecting, and storing items. The 

program should plan to follow the official rules on this subject. If these problems cannot be solved, the 

116
SD-22 – January 2016 

resolution option may not be viable. Options for storage locations include suppliers, prime 

contractors, and DoD component storage facilities.107

 

107 White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico has established a facility and processes for storage. 

117
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix A. Obsolescence and Its Relationship to DMSMS 

Obsolescence is not synonymous with DMSMS. Instead, it is less definitive and is situationally dependent 

in that an item can be obsolete from one perspective, but not from another. In the context of DMSMS 

management, an item is obsolete if it is out-of-date and superseded by something new. Below are key 

underlying causes of an item being out-of-date: 











Technology. A technology is obsolete when the use of a newer technology becomes broadly 

preferred over the old, even if the old technology still functions and can be produced and purchased 

for certain unique situations. For example, videocassette recorders and players became 

technologically obsolete, when DVD recorders and players superseded them. 

Function. An item is obsolete functionally if it no longer functions as intended because of hardware, 

software, or requirements changes to the item. Such an item may still be available commercially. For 

example, a videocassette tape (especially one in beta format) could be considered to be obsolete 

functionally, because players are no longer available for purchase to extract the tape’s content. 

Regulation. Regulations that ban the use of items or substances lead to their obsolescence. For 

example, Freon use has been banned because of its ozone-depleting characteristics. Similarly, the 

purchase of rare-earth elements such as neodymium or ytterbium from China has been banned. 

Supportability. An item may be obsolete if it is no longer supportable. An example is commercial 

software, which continually needs product support to correct errors, to defend against vulnerabilities, 

and, in some cases, to maintain licenses. Unsupportable software is obsolete. Beyond software, if the 

necessary item test capability is no longer available, then the item may no longer function properly 

and, therefore, could be considered obsolete. 

Market demand. A product becomes obsolete when there is no longer a demand for it, because, for 

example, it is no longer desirable even though it may still be available for purchase. Leisure suits are 

an example. Another example is a product that is no longer profitable to produce because of low 

demand. 

Obsolescence may be planned or unplanned. An example is a relatively new home computer printer that 

is technologically equivalent to the latest ones on the market but requires proprietary ink cartridges that 

are different from the ones used in the most recent model of the printer. The manufacturer may 

deliberately stop manufacturing those cartridges (thereby making the printer functionally obsolete) to 

force people to purchase the most recent printer model. 

A high degree of overlap exists between obsolete items and DMSMS. Figure 18 notionally depicts their 

relationship. 

Figure 18. Notional Relationship between DMSMS and Obsolescence 

118
SD-22 – January 2016 

An item may be obsolete, but if it is still in production, there is no DMSMS issue as long as the production 

capability or capacity can meet the demand. For example, hand pumps for water are still made for places 

where power is not available for an electric pump. Another example is a situation of an obsolete computer 

that is out of production, but it is not a DMSMS issue because there is sufficient stock in inventory to meet 

all future demands. In the first example, no DMSMS case would be opened because the item is still in 

production. In the second example, a DMSMS case would be opened, but no resolution would be 

needed. Changing the circumstances of the second example can create a situation in which a DMSMS 

problem will evolve over time. If there were not sufficient inventory to meet future demands, DoD might be 

able to repair the computer instead of replacing it. If that were the case, there would be no DMSMS 

problem. However, a DMSMS issue would occur if the repair parts were also obsolete, if the know-how 

(e.g., skills) to make the repair was lacking, or if the ability to test the system (e.g., the test equipment) 

after the repair was unavailable. 

Finally, a non-obsolete item may have a DMSMS issue. For example, market factors may drive a supplier 

out of a particular line of business, a supplier may declare bankruptcy, a natural disaster may affect 

production, or a buyout of a sole-source provider may lead to temporary or permanent termination of 

production of a particular product. Some temporary DMSMS issues may be due to allocation of a scarce 

item. In this situation, some systems may be faced with a DMSMS issue, while others may not. 

Not all obsolescence results in DMSMS issues, and not all DMSMS issues result from obsolescence. 

However, most DMSMS issues result from some form of obsolescence. 

Appendix B. Developing DMSMS Workforce Competencies 

This appendix outlines the recommended training required to achieve entry-level, technician-level, and 

leadership-level competencies and experience associated with the roles and responsibilities of DMSMS 

practitioners. 

Entry-level training provides an individual with basic knowledge of the processes and procedures required 

to establish and maintain a robust DMSMS management program. An individual with entry-level 

119
SD-22 – January 2016 

competency is not expected to be proficient in analyzing DMSMS issues or in leading a DMSMS 

management program. An individual with entry-level competency should perform DMSMS analysis only in 

conjunction with an individual possessing technician-level or leadership-level competency. An individual 

with leadership-level competency should review all data before they are submitted for approval. An 

individual with entry-level competency should assist with DMSMS management functions under the 

supervision of an individual with leadership-level competency. 

An individual with technician-level competency is capable of leading, conducting, explaining, and 

defending the results of any analyses that he or she has led. DMSMS analysts with technician-level 

competency should submit analyses to a person with a DMSMS leadership-level competency for 

approval. A DMSMS analyst with a technician-level competency should be capable of establishing and 

maintaining a robust DMSMS management program with minimal oversight. 

An individual with leadership-level competency is well versed, trained, and experienced in DMSMS 

analyses, applications, and management practices. This is the desired level for DMT leaders. A 

leadership-level analyst will have developed and led numerous DMSMS efforts and must be conversant 

in all aspects of DMSMS processes and policy. The leadership-level analyst is ultimately responsible for 

planning the overall DMSMS effort for a program. 

DMSMS competency is not developed in a vacuum. It must be obtained in conjunction with DAU DAWIA 

certifications for government employees and a company analog for industry.108

To achieve DMSMS entry-level competency, an individual should have the following DAU training beyond 

DAWIA level 1 certification: 

 DMSMS: What Program Management Needs to Do and Why (CLL 200; forthcoming) 

DMSMS Fundamentals (CLL 201) 

DMSMS Fundamentals: Executive Summary (CLL 202; forthcoming) 

DLA DMSMS Essentials (CLL 203) 

DMSMS Case Studies (CLL 204) 

DMSMS for the Technical Professional (CLL 205) 

Defense Logistics Agency Support to the PM (CLL 002) 

Market Research (CLC 004) 

Market Research for Technical Personnel (CLE 028) 

COTS Acquisition for Program Managers (CLM 025) 

Preventing Counterfeit Parts from Entering the DoD Supply System (CLL 032) 

Counterfeit Prevention Awareness (CLL 062) 

Introduction to Reducing Total Ownership Costs (CLM 021) 

Fundamentals of Systems Engineering (SYS 101). 



























To achieve DMSMS technician-level competency, an individual should have the following DAU training 

beyond DAWIA level 2 certification: 

 All entry-level competency requirements 

 

108 DAWIA was initially enacted as Public Law 101-510 in November 1990. Most of the act is codified 

in 10 U.S.C. § 1701–1764. 

120
SD-22 – January 2016 



























Business Case Analysis (CLL 015) 

Technology Refresh Planning (CLL 019) 

Independent Logistics Assessments (CLL 020) 

Reliability and Maintainability (CLE 301) 

Contracting for the Rest of Us (CLC 011) 

Introduction to Parts Management (CLL 206) 

Improved Statement of Work (CLM 031) 

Technical Reviews (CLE 003) 

Modular Open Systems Approach to DoD Acquisition (CLE 013) 

Risk Management (CLM 017) 

Acquisition Fundamentals (ACQ 101) 

Performance Based Logistics (LOG 235) 

Lead-free Electronics Impact on DoD Programs (CLL 007). 

To achieve DMSMS leadership-level competency, an individual should have the following DAU training 

beyond DAWIA level 3 certification: 









All technician-level competency requirements 

Configuration Management (LOG 204) 

Reliability Centered Maintenance (CLL 030) 

Intermediate Systems Planning, Research, Development and Engineering (SYS 202). 

Some of the above courses are core requirements for DAWIA certifications. Table 14 lists the courses, 

beyond DAU certifications, needed to achieve DMSMS competency. Specifically, the table identifies 

DMSMS competency courses in life-cycle logistics (LCL); systems planning, research, development, and 

engineering (SPRDE)–science and technology management (STM); SPRDE–SE; production, quality, and 

manufacturing (PQM); program management (PM); and T&E. All of the courses identified are self-paced, 

computer-based training and accessible via the DAU Virtual Campus link (https://learn.dau.mil).

Table 14. Courses beyond DAU Certifications Needed to Achieve DMSMS Competency 

121
SD-22 – January 2016 

Course LCL STM ENG PQM PM T&E 

DMSMS Entry Level 

CLC 004 X X X X X X 

CLE 028 X X X X X X 

CLL 200 X X X X X X 

CLL 201 X X X X X X 

CLL 202 X X X X X X 

CLL 203 X X X X X X 

CLL 204 X X X X X X 

CLL 205 X X X X X X 

CLL 002 X X X X X X 

CLL 032 X X X X X X 

CLL 062 X X X X X X 

CLM 025 X X X X X X 

CLM 021 X X X X X X 

ENG 101 Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core X Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core 

DMSMS Technician Level 

ACQ 101 Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core 

CLC 011 Lvl 2 Core X X X X X 

CLE 301 X X X X X Lvl 2 Core 

CLE 003 X X Lvl 2 Core Lvl 1 Core X Lvl 2 Core 

CLE 013 X X X X X X 

CLL 015 Lvl 3 Core X X X X Lvl 3 Core 

CLL 019 X X X X X X 

CLL 020 Lvl 3 Core X X X X X 

CLL 206 X X X X X X 

CLL 007 X X X X X X 

CLM 031 X X X X X Lvl 3 Core 

CLM 017 X X Lvl 1 Core Lvl 1 Core X X 

LOG 235 Lvl 2 Core X X X X X 

DMSMS Leadership Level 

LOG 204 Lvl 2 Core X X X X X 

CLL 030 X X X X X X 

SYS 202 X X Lvl 2 Core X Lvl 3 Core Lvl 2 Core 

122
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix C. Contracting 

DMSMS management can be performed (1) by a program using government personnel (and SE technical 

assistance support), (2) by the prime contractor and its subcontractors,109 or (3) by independent 

contractors.110 The entity managing DMSMS issues for a program has no bearing on the robustness of 

that effort. 

Regardless of who performs DMSMS management, the government remains responsible for ensuring 

that DMSMS risk is effectively managed. This is accomplished through the DMP, which emphasizes how 

a robust DMSMS management effort will reduce future obsolescence-related costs and minimize 

detrimental impacts on materiel readiness, operational mission capability, and safety of personnel. The 

DMP identifies all of the program’s DMSMS planning objectives, the approach to be pursued, and the 

entities that will perform the functions necessary to pursue the approach (Section 3). If contractors 

perform the work, the DMP should describe the nature and extent of government oversight. 

When a program decides to use a prime contractor (and its subcontractors) or an independent contractor 

for DMSMS management, contracts containing DMSMS-related requirements (including government 

access to sufficient DMSMS-related information), combined with government oversight, provide the basis 

for ensuring that DMSMS management is effective. This appendix focuses on factors and examples a 

program should consider incorporating into contracts with a prime contractor (and its subcontractors) or 

an independent contractor provider of DMSMS management. 

C.1. Determining Whether to Contract for DMSMS Management 

C.1.1. General Factors to Consider 

Early in a program’s life cycle, a decision should be made regarding who will have primary responsibility 

to perform DMSMS management in support of the program. This subsection includes a number of factors 

a program should consider in determining whether to keep DMSMS management solely within the 

government or to contract with a prime contractor (and its subcontractors) or an independent contractor. 

C.1.1.1. Availability of Resources 

Using a contractor (whether a prime contractor and its subcontractors or an independent contractor) for 

DMSMS management requires funding. In some instances, the program office may already have funding 

available associated with a design, production, or sustainment contract. In those cases, such contracts 

and funding could be used to support a prime contractor and its subcontractors as the DMSMS 

management provider for the program. Using an independent contractor for DMSMS management 

normally requires a vehicle that is not with the prime contractor. There may or may not be an existing 

contract that can be leveraged for this purpose. If funding available for such contracts is limited, internal 

government resources can usually be obtained to perform DMSMS management internal to the program. 

C.1.1.2. A Contractor’s DMSMS Management Capability

If a program is considering the use of a prime contractor (and its subcontractors) to provide DMSMS 

management, a key initial consideration is the DMSMS management capability of that contractor. If the 

contractor has a robust DMSMS management program in place, then the program might want to leverage 

that existing capability, rather than establish an entirely duplicative government-run DMSMS management 

program. In this case, the government might want the prime contractor to manage and mitigate DMSMS 

issues for the program, while the program establishes a way for the government to oversee the prime 

contractor’s DMSMS management efforts. However, if a prime contractor’s internal DMSMS management 

program does not appear to be sufficiently effective, then the government may need to establish its own 

more robust DMSMS management program. 

 

109 The OEM should be responsible for flowing down DMSMS-related contractual requirements to its 

suppliers and to require those suppliers to flow down DMSMS-related requirements through their supply 

chains in a similar way. This appendix assumes that is the case whenever the OEM is discussed as a 

potential provider of DMSMS management functions. 

110 An independent contractor could be part of a government DMSMS SME team, as discussed in 

Section 3.

123
SD-22 – January 2016 

If a program is considering the use of an independent contractor, it should consider the additional 

capabilities such an independent contractor might offer, as compared to other DMSMS management 

providers. Below are some questions that a program should consider: 









Is the independent contractor offering DMSMS management capability that is not available through 

the prime contractor or the government? 

What kind of capability and access does the independent contractor have regarding the receipt of 

PDNs or the ability to manually research items? 

Is an independent contractor needed if the prime contractor and its subcontractors have an existing, 

robust DMSMS management capability? 

Have other programs used this independent contractor? How have these other programs evaluated 

the independent contractor’s performance?

C.1.1.3. Acquisition Phase 

During the design and production phases, the program already has a prime contractor under contract to 

develop and manufacture the system. DMSMS management and mitigation should inherently be a part of 

those efforts; therefore, the prime contractor and its subcontractors are in a natural position to perform 

these activities. In such a case, the government should ensure that a contractual requirement exists for 

the prime contractor to develop a DMP establishing the DMSMS management objectives and approach 

for the program. There is, however, the potential for conflicting forces to be at work, if DMSMS 

management responsibility is assigned to the prime contractor. The business objectives of any for-profit 

company include lowering costs and increasing revenue, whereas implementing DMSMS management 

practices requires expending time and resources. The contractor’s leaders must believe that DMSMS 

management is a good business practice, because it makes products more attractive to buyers through 

the reduction of total ownership cost. Consequently, the contractor’s products will have a competitive 

advantage. 

Effective DMSMS management in the design phase is critical. If obsolescence is “designed in,” then the 

program will face large costs to mitigate these problems later in the life cycle. The prime contractor and its 

subcontractors are in a good position to manage DMSMS issues during design, because of their 

familiarity with the current configuration of the design (including the potential for rapidly changing items). 

The government must remain in a position to carefully oversee what the prime contractor and its 

subcontractors do with regard to DMSMS management, including the identification and resolution of 

current and near-term obsolescence issues. Simply receiving an item obsolescence report at a design 

review is not sufficient oversight; the government should have a thorough understanding of and maintain 

visibility into the DMSMS management processes being used by the prime contractor and its 

subcontractors. 

Although the system’s parts lists and BOMs should be stable by the time the program has entered the 

production phase, the government will still have limited experience with the system. Consequently, the 

prime contractor may continue to play a key role in DMSMS management. One of the areas that the 

government should include in its oversight is laying the appropriate groundwork to transition DMSMS 

management to the entity most appropriate to perform that role during sustainment. 

Typically, the government uses a combination of three different sustainment strategies: 

 I





n-house support through a service depot or supply system or through DLA 

Non-PBL contractor support services 

PBL contracts. 

In the first case, the government will typically not use the prime contractor and its subcontractors for 

DMSMS management. The government will either use its own in-house capability or combine its in-house 

capability with an independent third-party contractor. The use of non-PBL contract support depends on 

the scope of work. For example, a contractor operating a repair depot on either a cost-reimbursable or 

fixed-price basis could be asked to perform DMSMS management. If the work is more limited (e.g., 

interim or emergency support), then DMSMS management could be out of scope for that contract. 

124
SD-22 – January 2016 

PBL is a sustainment strategy that places primary emphasis on optimizing system support to meet the 

needs of the warfighter. PBL specifies outcome performance goals of systems, ensures that 

responsibilities are assigned, provides incentives for attaining those goals, and facilitates the overall lifecycle management of system reliability, supportability, and total ownership costs. It is an integrated 

acquisition and logistics process for buying system capability. Generally, PBL contracts are long term (5–

10 years) and require that the provider manage many aspects of product support throughout the life 

cycle. A properly structured PBL contract contains DMSMS management requirements. 

In a theoretical sense, PBL incentivizes the provider to maintain a proactive DMSMS management 

program to achieve the required performance outcomes. This is not always true in practice. The 

contractor will take the most cost-effective approach to meeting its performance requirements within the 

terms and conditions of its contract. This approach may not be the most cost-effective for the government 

when the contract is completed. 

C.1.1.4. Conflicts of Interest 

Whenever the government contracts for services, it must determine whether any potential conflicts of 

interest exist and then manage those situations effectively. For example, there could be a situation in 

which a nongovernment DMSMS management provider has a business interest (e.g., potential additional 

revenue) regarding a specific resolution option, as compared to other options. This situation does not 

necessarily preclude the use of that DMSMS management provider; however, it does place an additional 

burden on the government to appropriately oversee and understand the potential repercussions of 

decisions and to factor them into the program’s decision-making process. 

C.1.2. Considerations by Function 

Below are some contracting considerations for selected activities associated with the DMSMS 

management steps: 

 Prepare—DMSMS management program infrastructure. 

o

o

o

o

o

Define obsolescence. The government should determine what constitutes obsolescence 

for the program, and any contractor responsible for DMSMS management activities 

should agree to this definition. For example, for the purposes of a contract, hardware, 

software, and firmware could be considered obsolete when the item can no longer be 

procured from the prime contractor, as identified in the current TDP or product 

specification. 

Determine whether the program is concerned with critical materials in its supply chains. If 

programs have a reason to be concerned about critical materials in their supply chains, 

they should consider adding a contract clause to identify the extent to which such 

materials are in the supply chains for the subsystems of interest. This is often done today 

to be compliant with REACH and RoHS reporting certification and to meet PESHE 

requirements. This effort, however, does not normally identify the suppliers of the critical 

materials nor does it identify the specific critical material content. Typically engineering 

estimates are made to estimate the total amount of material included. If a more extensive 

understanding of the supply chain were considered necessary, the program office should 

limit the list of materials to be tracked in this way. 

Develop a DMSMS management plan. Every organization (government and contractor) 

conducting DMSMS management should have its own DMP. Contractors should be 

required to use SAE International Standard, SAE-STD-0016, “Standard for Preparing a 

DMSMS Management Plan.”

Continually track and manage DMSMS cases. This process may be performed by any 

combination of the three categories of providers: the government, the prime contractor 

and its subcontractors, or an independent contractor. Regardless of the DMSMS 

management provider, the government should ensure that it maintains complete records. 

Report performance and track cost metrics. This may be performed by any combination 

of the three categories of providers: the government, the prime contractor and its 

subcontractors, or an independent contractor. The government should define the format 

125
SD-22 – January 2016 

to be used. Regardless of the DMSMS management provider, the government should 

ensure that it maintains complete records. 

Manage subcontractor’s DMSMS management programs. This is a required DMSMS 

management function for the prime contractor. Overseeing the prime contractor’s 

management of its subcontractors’ DMSMS management programs is also a government 

responsibility. This applies whenever DMSMS management is conducted by the prime 

contractor and its subcontractors. Therefore, it is important to include language for the 

prime contractor that requires flowing appropriate DMSMS management language down 

the supply chain. In addition, supplier selection should consider the vendor’s past 

DMSMS-related performance. Government oversight should also include such supplierselection activities. 

o

 Identify—DMSMS monitoring and surveillance. 

o

o

Deliver item data. The prime contractor and subcontractors should develop, maintain, 

and deliver item data to enable the identification, forecasting, and management of 

obsolescence issues and mitigation. Item data include both indentured and flat BOMs or 

preferred parts lists for all specified subsystems down to the assembly level, depending 

on what is available given the current stage in the life cycle. The program must receive 

this data in order for a robust DMSMS management program to be successful. 

Continually monitor BOMs. This process may be done by any combination of the three 

categories of providers: the government, the prime contractor and its subcontractors, or 

an independent contractor. Regardless of the DMSMS management provider, the 

government should ensure that it maintains complete records and that there is regular 

feedback and visibility to the program office. When this process is performed by the prime 

contractor and its subcontractors, there should be a process to identify and notify the 

government of pending and emergent obsolescence issues, supplier recall notices, and 

emergent vendor-implemented changes associated with the system baseline. The prime 

contractor should include a process for similarly notifying subcontractors. 





Assess—DMSMS impact assessment. The key activity in this step is to continually assess DMSMS 

impacts. This may be done by any combination of the three categories of providers: the government, 

the prime contractor and its subcontractors, or an independent contractor. This applies both at the 

item level and at higher levels of assembly. Regardless of the DMSMS management provider, the 

government should ensure that it maintains complete records. Government contributions concerning 

programmatic and logistics factors are necessary. 

Analyze and implement—DMSMS resolution determination and implementation of DMSMS 

resolutions. The key activity in this step is to identify cost-effective solutions. This may be done by 

any combination of the three categories of providers: the government, the prime contractor and its 

subcontractors, or an independent contractor. Regardless of the DMSMS management provider, the 

government should ensure that it maintains complete records. Government contributions concerning 

programmatic and logistics data, cost factors, and technology roadmaps are necessary. 

C.1.3. Exit Clauses 

Exit clauses for DMSMS management are a critical element in any contract, including PBL contracts. The 

primary purpose of this type of clause is to mitigate the risk of DMSMS issues at the end of the contract 

period of performance. The exit clause requires the contractor to ensure all known and forecasted 

DMSMS issues have been identified and have mitigation plans, so that the program office is not left with a 

system that is not supportable or sustainable due to DMSMS issues. It ensures that the information 

needed to manage DMSMS issues is provided to the program office. Exit clauses establish procedures 

and time frames to ensure the orderly and efficient transfer of performance responsibility upon completion 

or termination of the contract. The exit clauses should require delivery of those items, identified in the 

SOW or statement of objectives (SOO), within the negotiated contract price. 

Exit clauses are necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the transition of DMSMS management 

responsibilities from one provider to another. As part of its contractor oversight, DoD should develop an 

126
SD-22 – January 2016 

understanding of all DMSMS management activities being performed by the contractor. In that way, DoD 

will be in the best position to ensure that effective DMSMS management continues throughout a 

transition. 

C.2. DMSMS Management Activities in Contracts by Life-Cycle Phase 

When contracting for DMSMS management, a program should develop a contract that clearly conveys 

DMSMS management requirements. (The program also should state, in its RFP and other 

communications, that DMSMS-related criteria will be used in source selection.) This ensures that the 

contractor knows its specific responsibilities for DMSMS and that the government has access to the 

information it needs for adequate oversight. The following is a list of representative DMSMS management 

activities, by acquisition phase, that a program should consider when developing contracts to cover 

DMSMS management: 

 Design 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should minimize obsolescence throughout 

the contract period of performance by selecting products that will avoid or resolve 

hardware, software, and firmware obsolescence issues. This may be pursued through 

various DMSMS design considerations, such as selecting technologies or items that are 

not near their EOL, parts management, open systems design, and so on, as described in 

Section 2. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should determine the most cost-effective 

resolution to obsolescence issues. For the purposes of the contract, hardware, software, 

and firmware should be considered obsolete when the item can no longer be procured 

from the OCM as identified in the current TDP. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should flow down DMSMS management 

requirements to their suppliers, who should flow down requirements in a similar manner. 

The prime contractor should deliver a parts list and indentured BOM (or notional versions, 

if that is all that is available at the time), in accordance with DI-SESS-81656A, to the 

program office at agreed-upon points in the technical schedule. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors (and possibly an independent third-party 

contractor if one is to be used) should monitor the availability of items (with agreed-upon 

frequency of update) and provide the results to the program office. The government 

should be notified of pending and emergent obsolescence issues, supplier recall notices, 

and emergent vendor-implemented changes. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should resolve and document any DMSMS 

issues prior to the delivery of design. (Supplemental funding for the contractor may be 

necessary.) 

The prime contractor should deliver a production roadmap for low rate initial production. 

The prime contractor should deliver a supportability roadmap (with agreed-upon 

frequency of updates). 

The prime contractor should deliver a description of how the system is envisioned to be 

supported after fielding, including the process for assigning the source of repair. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors (and possibly an independent third-party 

contractor if one is to be used) should participate in the government-contractor 

obsolescence working group (with frequency of face-to-face and telephone 

communications specified). 

 Production 

o The prime contractor and its subcontractors should minimize obsolescence throughout 

the contract period of performance by selecting suppliers that will avoid or resolve 

hardware, software, and firmware obsolescence issues. 

127
SD-22 – January 2016 

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should determine the most cost-effective 

resolution to obsolescence issues. For the purposes of the contract, hardware, software, 

and firmware should be considered obsolete when the item can no longer be procured 

from the OCM as identified in the current TDP. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should flow down DMSMS management 

requirements to their suppliers, who should flow down requirements in a similar manner. 

The prime contractor should deliver a parts list and indentured BOM, in accordance with 

DI-SESS-81656A, to the program office if it has not already been delivered. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors (and possibly an independent third-party 

contractor if one is to be used) should monitor the availability of items (with agreed-upon 

frequency of update) and provide the results to the program office. The government 

should be notified of pending and emergent obsolescence issues, supplier recall notices, 

and emergent vendor-implemented changes. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should solve and document any DMSMS 

issues prior to delivery of the system for fielding. 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors (and possibly an independent third-party 

contractor if one is to be used) should participate in the government-contractor 

obsolescence working group (with frequency of face-to-face and telephone 

communications specified). 

The prime contractor and its subcontractors should develop and execute a plan to 

transition DMSMS management to the sustainment provider.

 Sustainment 

o

o

o

o

o

o

The sustainment provider should minimize obsolescence throughout the contract period 

of performance by selecting suppliers that will avoid or resolve hardware, software, and 

firmware obsolescence issues. 

The sustainment provider, especially in the PBL case, should determine the most costeffective resolution to obsolescence issues. For the purposes of the contract, hardware, 

software, and firmware should be considered obsolete when the item can no longer be 

procured from the OCM as identified in the current TDP. 

The sustainment provider, especially in the PBL case, should flow down DMSMS 

management requirements to suppliers, who should flow down requirements in a similar 

fashion. 

The sustainment provider (and possibly an independent third-party contractor if one is to 

be used) should monitor the availability of items (with agreed-upon frequency of update) 

and provide the results to the program office. The government should be notified of 

pending and emergent obsolescence issues, supplier recall notices, and emergent 

vendor-implemented changes. 

The sustainment provider (and possibly an independent third-party contractor if one is to 

be used) should participate in the government-contractor obsolescence working group 

(with frequency of face-to-face and telephone communication specified). 

The sustainment provider should recommend DMSMS resolutions. 

C.3. Examples of DMSMS Management Contract Language 

This section contains several examples of how DMSMS management responsibilities have been 

documented in contract language: 





Example 1 contains contract language about the DMP. 

Example 2 contains DMSMS resolution-related contract language. 

128
SD-22 – January 2016 

















Example 3 contains SOW/SOO language on BOM, CM, and DMSMS issue forecasting and 

notifications-related requirements. 

Example 4 contains language detailing intent to use DMSMS management factors in review of 

approaches. 

Example 5 contains contract language related to the assignment of DMSMS management 

responsibilities support for design and production. 

Example 6 contains language pertaining to the assignment of DMSMS management responsibilities 

support for production. 

Examples 7–11 contain contract language detailing the assignment, to a contractor, of either generic 

responsibility for obsolescence management or the responsibility for multiple DMSMS-related 

activities. 

Examples 12 and 13 contain contract language detailing the assignment, to a contractor, of 

responsibility for obsolescence management during production. 

Example 14 shows language that a prime contractor or a subcontractor could use to flow down 

DMSMS requirements to a supplier. 

Examples 15 and 16 contain contract language pertaining to deliverable and mitigation information for 

chemicals and other critical materials. 

Example 2 includes a statement about monitoring, identifying, and planning resolutions. Generic 

examples 17, 18, 19, and 20 are for contract language to implement specific resolutions: 

 Example 17 contains contract language for life-of-need buys with a maximum funding liability. 

Example 18 contains contract language for a redesign. 

Example 19 contains contract language for a redesign in association with a life-of-need buy. 

Example 20 contains contract language for reverse engineering. 







The DMSMS management program should ensure that the chosen contract language clearly specifies the 

DMSMS management responsibilities being assigned to the contractor and enables the government 

access to the information it needs to maintain effective DMSMS management oversight. The examples 

should be tailored to the specific situation. In addition to the examples here, the Navy has developed 

example Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) for an AoA, BOM, DMP, and report. They are 

designed to assist programs with developing their own deliverables. These CDRLs can be found on the 

DKSP. 

Example 1. DMSMS Management Plan 

The Contractor shall develop and submit as part of its proposal (with an advance copy supplied to the 

Government at time of cost estimate submission), an Obsolescence and DMSMS Management Plan for 

managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of parts and/or material required for 

performance of this contract. 

At a minimum, the plan shall address the following: 











Means and approach for providing the Government with information regarding obsolescence and 

DMSMS issues 

Planned resolution of current obsolescence and DMSMS issues 

Parts list screening 

Parts list monitoring 

Receiving, processing and disseminating Government-Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) 

DMSMS Notices 

129
SD-22 – January 2016 









Receiving, processing and disseminating Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) DMSMS Alerts 

Communication with and availability of information to the Government 

Means and approach for establishing obsolescence and DMSMS solutions 

Plan for conducting DMSMS predictions. 

Example 2. DMSMS Resolution-Related Contract Language 

Company X is responsible to provide support for all valid requirements including those instances where 

DMS/MS and obsolete piece part issues impact, delay, or prohibit the acquisition of necessary piece parts 

except as discussed below. Where DMS/MS solutions have been funded under Program Office funding 

and separate contract, Company X is responsible to monitor, identify and plan the resolution of DMS/MS 

and parts obsolescence issues and should plan far enough in advance to alleviate DMS/MS and parts 

obsolescence occurrences. Company X may propose and submit DMS/MS resolution plans to the ... 

Program Office and [Service inventory control point program manager] which include Life-of-Type buys 

and Bridge buys, proposed to meet the requirements of each delivery order and what is suggested for 

any post-contractual period. Although Company X is authorized to use existing Government DMS/MS 

resolution efforts, Company X nonetheless retains full responsibility for resolving DMS/MS issues. ...

Company X shall inform the Government of known or suspected DMS/MS issues for resolution upon 

discovery. Company X shall include all known information related to the DMS/MS issues at the time of 

Government notification. DMS/MS does not excuse Company X from the performance of metrics 

identified in Section H. In the event the program office... funding for DMS/MS effort is not adequate or not 

provided in a timely manner, the [Service inventory control point] Contracting Officer may, in his or her 

discretion, provide relief from Company X’s responsibility for fulfillment of performance metrics for 

resolutions. Company X shall submit all DMS/MS resolution recommendations to the Contracting Officer 

and Program Office or designated agent for final disposition. Upon a final DMS/MS resolution decision by 

the Government, Company X shall provide support for Life of Type, or Bridge Buy storage as required to 

implement the DMS/MS resolution. 

Example 3. SOW/SOO Example of BOM, Configuration Management, 

and DMSMS Issue Forecasting and Notifications-Related Requirements 

1.0 Bill of Materials (BOM) 

1.1 Periodic delivery of updated BOMs to the program office in an indentured format (in accordance 

with DID DI-PSSS-81656A) 

1.2 Mitigation process of obtaining source data to forecast DMSMS if prime vendor or supplier will not 

provide a BOM 

1.3 The contractor shall identify, as applicable, the parts planned to be used, as well as those used in 

the product at all indentured levels. The data may be obtained progressively during any program life cycle 

phase using sources such as the preferred parts list, build-of-materials, vendor surveys, inspections, etc. 

The information documented at the part level shall be updated as the design progresses or changes and 

be sufficient to enable forecasting and management of any associated DMSMS issues. 

2.0 Configuration Management/Control 

2.1 Validation of the system’s technical data to ensure all configuration changes are incorporated into 

the Configuration Management (CM) data base and drawings to ensure the system’s most current 

configuration is documented 

2.2 CM of DMSMS addressed in the CM program plan 

3.0 DMSMS Forecasting and Notifications 

3.1 Use of predictive tools/methods to proactively forecast and monitor parts for DMSMS and provide 

results to the program office, access/insight into tools, DMSMS status at all reviews. 

Example 4. Language Detailing Intent to Use DMSMS Management Factors 

in Review of Approaches 

130
SD-22 – January 2016 

Proposals will be evaluated on the management approach and the adequacy of planning for mitigating 

DMSMS risks. Proposals including management plans defining a proactive approach to manage DMSMS 

will receive more favorable ratings than those without such an approach. A proactive approach will 

include predictive forecasting strategies, parts list screening to the piece part level, parts list monitoring, 

matching of parts to the weapons systems’ environment across the vendor chain, methodologies for 

tracking, reporting, and mitigating DMSMS cases to avoid costly solutions, and a process to manage sub 

tier suppliers’ DMSMS efforts.

Example 5. Assignment of DMSMS Management Responsibilities Support 

for Design/Production 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) 

When addressing DMSMS and obsolescence in the XXX Parts Management Plan, the contractor shall 

include the following: 



















Means and approach for providing the Government with information regarding obsolescence and 

DMSMS issues 

Planned resolution of current obsolescence and DMSMS issues 

Parts list screening 

Parts list monitoring 

Receiving, processing and disseminating GIDEP DMSMS Notices 

Receiving, processing and disseminating DLA DMSMS Alerts 

Communication with and availability of information to the Government 

Means and approach for establishing obsolescence and DMSMS solutions 

Plan for conducting DMSMS predictions. 

Example 6. Assignment of DMSMS Management Responsibilities 

Support for Production 

The Contractor/sub-contractor shall be an integral part and maintain full participation with the Program 

Office Obsolescence DMSMS IPT as follows: 

Formal notification to alerts (Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP), Predictive Tool, as 

utilized by the Contractor) shall be submitted quarterly via the XXXX when they affect the YYY Program 

through this effort. The Contractor shall notify the XXX DMSMS IPT upon discovery of immediate or 

imminent DMSMS issues impacting the ability to manufacture articles under this SOW. The Contractor 

shall participate in quarterly DMSMS working groups to assist XXX in determining the best course of 

action to address these DMSMS issues. The Contractor shall notify XXX immediately should it be unable 

to maintain the capability to manufacture, repair and yield rates for articles under this SOW. The 

Contractor shall update and supply an indentured Bill of Materials (BOM) list quarterly via the CITIS. The 

Contractor shall analyze the YYY configurations and identify those items that are critical to supporting the 

YYY system. Potential DMSMS problems include, but are not limited to: 

a) Remanufacture issues, either performed organically by XXX or another Contractor’s facility.

b) Closing of production lines due to Contractor downsizing, streamlining, contract termination or 

production line closeout 

c) Identification of impact assessment of diminishing sources of supply, including parts 

obsolescence issues. 

d) Expected/unexpected discontinuances of business (terminal closure) by the Contractor. 

e) Re-procurement/repair of Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) items. 

131
SD-22 – January 2016 

The Contractor shall determine if any of these potential problems can or will exist during the production 

contract and make recommendations for resolving them. 

Example 7. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor 

The Contractor is responsible for managing obsolescence over the entire period of the contract, and 

notwithstanding any obsolescence issues or problems, the Contractor remains responsible for meeting all 

performance and other requirements of this contract. This obsolescence management responsibility 

includes an ongoing review and identification of actual and potential obsolescence issues, including but 

not limited to obsolescence of items, assemblies, sub-assemblies, piece parts, and material (hereafter 

referred to for purposes of this section only as “parts and/or material”). The Contractor is responsible for 

all costs associated with obtaining a replacement if and when any parts and/or material become obsolete. 

The costs for which the Contractor is responsible include, but are not limited to, the costs of investigating 

part availability, interchangeability and substitutability, locating part replacement, vendor interface, 

engineering efforts, testing requirements, internal drawing changes, etc. The Contractor shall prevent any 

additional costs from being incurred by the Government due to obsolescence. Any configuration changes 

due to obsolescence shall be approved in accordance with the Configuration Management requirements 

of this SOW. The Contractor shall provide the Government with obsolescence status briefs, as part of the 

periodic program reviews provided for under the contract. 

Example 8. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor 

The Contractor is responsible for managing obsolescence over the entire period of the contract to ensure 

compliance with all performance and contract requirements. Responsibility includes all costs associated 

with locating part replacement, vendor interface, and engineering efforts. The Contractor shall develop a 

plan for managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of components, assemblies, 

or materials used in the system. Changes considered necessary by the Contractor to ensure the 

continued manufacture and/or repair of the equipment shall be made in accordance with the 

Configuration Management requirements of this SOW. The Contractor’s Obsolescence Management Plan 

shall include language identifying their participation in the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 

(GIDEP). The Contractor will not be responsible for redesign cost for obsolescence initiatives producing 

Class I changes. System/sub-System/Component redesign efforts will be pursued only after the 

Contractor has researched and eliminated all other potential mitigation options. 

Example 9. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor 

The Contractor’s obsolescence management program shall prevent the impact to contract performance 

metrics and shall prevent additional costs being incurred by the Government due to obsolescence. The 

Contractor is 100% responsible for all obsolescence issues/problems with regard to the items in the 

contract, including: managing the loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers for the spare and 

repairable items covered under the XXXX PBL Program. The Contractor shall manage obsolescence 

issues/problems in order to prevent the impact to contract performance metrics. Costs related to 

obsolescence issues/problems will be borne by the Contractor during the life of the contract. Changes 

considered necessary by the Contractor to ensure the continued manufacture and/or repair of the items 

will be made in accordance with XXXX requirements and/or Configuration Management requirements. 

Example 10. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor 

The Contractor, on a continuous basis during contract performance, shall review and identify 

obsolescence issues related to piece parts for the items listed in Attachment “X.” The Contractor shall be 

responsible for piece part acquisition of replacement items to avoid obsolescence or repair turnaround 

issues. Should obsolescence or DMSMS issues occur that preclude the Contractor from obtaining spares 

of the current design for any vendor repairable item, as identified in Attachment “X,” any redesign, 

qualification and production efforts will be considered “over and above” this statement of work. Such issue 

shall relieve the Contractor from availability for that item. The Contractor will perform an engineering 

analysis of these items and provide recommended solutions. If in the course of an engineering review of 

132
SD-22 – January 2016 

the items in Attachment “X,” the Contractor identifies other obsolescence issues concerning the end item 

test sets, the Contractor may notify the Government of these issues and possible remedies. 

Example 11. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor 

The Contractor is responsible for managing obsolescence over the entire period of the contract to ensure 

compliance with all performance and contract requirements. Responsibility includes all costs associated 

with locating part replacement, vendor interface, and engineering efforts. The Contractor shall develop a 

plan for managing the loss, or impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of components, assemblies, 

or materials used in the system. Changes considered necessary by the Contractor to ensure the 

continued manufacture and/or repair of the equipment shall be made in accordance with the 

Configuration Management requirements of this SOW. The Contractor’s Obsolescence Plan shall include 

participation in GIDEP. 

The Contractor will not be responsible for redesign cost for obsolescence initiatives producing Class I 

changes. Redesign effort to proceed only after the Contractor has exhausted all options to accomplish 

engineering efforts for drop in replacement. 

The Contractor’s obsolescence program shall prevent impact to contract performance metrics and shall 

prevent additional costs being incurred by the Government due to obsolescence. 

The Contractor is 100% responsible for all obsolescence issues/problems with regard to the items in the 

contract, including: managing the loss or impending loss of manufacturers or suppliers for the spare and 

repairable items covered under the XXX PBL Program. The Contractor must manage obsolescence 

issues/problems in order to prevent impact to contract performance metrics. Cost related to obsolescence 

issues/problems will be borne by the Contractor during the life of the contract. Changes considered 

necessary by the Contractor to ensure the continued manufacture and/or repair of the items will be made 

in accordance with ... requirements and/or Configuration Management requirements.

The Contractor, on a continuous basis during contract performance, shall review and identify 

obsolescence issues related to piece parts for the items listed in Attachment “X.” The Contractor shall be 

responsible for piece part acquisition of replacement items to avoid obsolescence or repair turnaround 

issues. Should obsolescence or DMSMS issues occur that preclude the contractor from obtaining spares 

of the current design for any vendor repairable item, as identified in Attachment “X,” any re-design, 

qualification and production efforts will be considered “over and above” this statement of work. Such issue 

shall relieve the contractor from availability for that item. The Contractor will perform an engineering 

analysis of these items and provide recommended solutions. If in the course of an engineering review of 

the items in Attachment “X,” the Contractor identifies other obsolescence issues concerning the end item 

test sets, the contractor may notify the Government of these issues and possible remedies. 

Example 12. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor during Production 

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) 

DMS Management 

XXXX shall perform integrated DMS and Technology Refreshment Planning in accordance with the 

[XXXX DMSMS Management Plan and the XXXX Technology Refreshment Management Plan]. XXXX 

shall proactively manage DMS to ensure viable ongoing production and analyze impacts affecting future 

availability or logistics support of deliverable equipment. XXXX shall perform technology refreshment 

planning based on DMS drivers and supply trends, to define recommended system refreshment timelines 

based on lowest total program cost. Technology refreshment planning shall be coordinated with any 

capability upgrade roadmap activities accomplished by the Follow-on Development competency, to allow 

for an integrated program capability/tech-refreshment roadmap 

XXXX shall flow down DMS requirements to suppliers and sub-contractors to the extent necessary to 

fulfill requirements under this statement of work. XXXX shall ensure that each supplier has established 

and utilized an effective DMS management program that identifies DMS status for all parts, materials, 

133
SD-22 – January 2016 

assemblies, subassemblies, and software items used in the current and prior configurations of deliverable 

equipment. 

The XXXX DMS Management activity shall include: 

a) A process for identification, resolution and implementation for all DMS/obsolescence issues 

associated with components, materials, assemblies, subassemblies, and software items used 

in deliverable hardware, logistics support system, and support and training equipment under 

this contract. The contractor shall generate DMS case reports and recommendations based on 

trade study results. The reports shall be in accordance with CDRL XXXX. 

b) A semi-annual obsolescence status report to inform the Government and International Partners 

of current year’s DMS/obsolescence status including near-term risks, pending DMS cases, 

DMS parts and materials inventory assessment, as well as upcoming redesign activities, in 

accordance with CDRL XXXX. 

c) A semi-annual, contractor-led Obsolescence Working Group (OWG) during the life of the 

contract. These meetings shall occur within 45 days after the submittal of the semi-annual 

obsolescence report. Participation planning and specific meeting objectives will be decided and 

agreed upon by the Government and the Contractor no later than 14 days prior to each meeting 

date. In general, current and predicted DMS issues that have significant impacts to production 

and sustainment, DMS stock positions that have become excess for disposition (e.g. the result 

of profile changes or redesign activities), and coordination of Follow-on Development activities 

will be included. The Contractor shall maintain minutes and action item assignments and 

resolutions from each meeting. 

d) An annual 10-year rolling electronic systems DMS redesign and tech refreshment plan 

including both hardware and software air system elements in accordance with CDRL XXXX. 

This plan will define the optimally recommended refreshment point for air system components 

based on lowest total program cost, and will be provided for integration with any future upgrade 

roadmaps. 

e) A semi-annual 5-year rolling DMS activity and cost forecast to assist in program and budget 

planning in accordance with CDRL XXXX. This forecast will inherently contain and be based on 

the integrated technology refreshment plan, and will cover known and anticipated DMS events 

for the 5-year period. 

f) DMS modeling capability to assist in the development of cost forecasts and in ongoing 

DMS/tech refreshment upgrade trade studies and program decisions. This modeling shall 

provide the capability to evaluate the impact of non-optimal tech refreshment timelines and 

include allowances for the high variability inherent in DMS forecasting. 

DMS Redesigns 

XXXX shall perform redesign, as authorized in this contract, to resolve Diminishing Manufacturing 

Sources (DMS) in accordance with XXXX. 

Example 13. Assignment of Obsolescence Management Responsibility 

to the Contractor during Production 

The Contractor shall review sources of information such as the Government Industry Data Exchange 

Program (GIDEP) Diminishing Manufacturing Source (DMS) notices and supplier notifications for 

applicability of the hardware being delivered. The Contractor shall support the Government in microelectronic management and obsolescence avoidance by participating in engineering technology 

assessments [the system’s] hardware during the period of performance of this SOW. The result of the 

assessments will provide an understanding of the current microelectronic status of the systems, the 

scope of any immediate non-availability, obsolescence problems, and magnitude of future problems and 

possibilities for alleviating the impact to the program. 

The Contractor shall support the DMSMS activity by assisting the identification of alternate sources, 

replacement parts, or optional part numbers for parts and materials that become or will become obsolete. 

If a direct replacement is not identified, the Contractor shall notify the Government in writing through the 

134
SD-22 – January 2016 

contracting officer. The Contractor shall document any identified obsolescence or DMS issues for all 

microelectronic parts and associated materials used to produce and support the [system during the period 

of performance] in a System Problem Report (CDRL XXXX). The report shall include all obsolescence 

issues identified by the Contractor and its subcontractors. The report shall identify which production lot is 

impacted, identify proposed solutions/substitution for the obsolescence parts and estimate the lead time 

for the proposed solutions/substitution. Any nonrecurring effort associated with developing and/or 

qualifying replacement components and subsystems shall be separately contracted. 

Example 14. Contractor Flow Down of DMSMS Requirements to a Supplier 

Subcontractors/suppliers shall monitor parts obsolescence over the period of performance. Obsolescence 

monitoring includes an ongoing review and identification of actual and potential obsolescence issues, 

including but not limited to obsolescence of components, assemblies, subassemblies, piece parts, and 

material. The subcontractor/supplier is responsible for identifying the obsolete components and whether 

or not a simple replacement of the component is required or a redesign (that will drive a change in 

specification, ATP, and/or form/fit/function of the delivered item. Obsolescence issues that are identified 

during the period shall be documented and provided to (Name of Prime) via report on a (frequency 

specified). In addition, the subcontractor/supplier is responsible for identifying the potential cost (NTE 

ROM) of addressing the obsolescence issue, as well as the time required to implement the change. The 

NTE ROM shall include the costs for full investigating part availability, interchangeability and 

substitutability; locating part replacement; vendor interface; engineering efforts; testing requirements; 

internal drawing changes; etc. Any changes in configuration being driven by obsolescence must be 

approved by (Name of Prime) IAW contract requirements. 

Example 15. Requirement for Chemical Content Reporting 

at the Line Replaceable Unit Level 

Hazardous materials include but are not limited to...

Information delivered shall include: 

(1) Identification of the hazardous materials on the [insert system name] system and generated 

during operations and maintenance by specific data elements/ part number on the [insert system 

name] system and quantities (those used during manufacturing do not apply). 

(2) Description of the reasonably anticipated hazardous waste(s) generated during normal operations 

and maintenance and emergency situations. 

Example 16. Requirement for Mitigation Information Pertaining to 

Specific Critical Materials 

If [insert critical material] is planned to be used or will be required for maintenance operations, provide the 

following information for each application and alternative: 

(1) Cost effectiveness of alternative materials or processes over the [insert system name] system life 

cycle. 

(2) Technical feasibility of alternative materials 

Example 17. Life-of-Need Buys with a Maximum Funding Liability 

a) (INSERT CONTRACTOR NAME) agrees that no additional funding will be required from the 

(INSERT SERVICE) for life-of-need buys (up to $1 million per buy going through DMSRB) in 

support of obsolescence for the (INSERT SYSTEM TYPE) requirements under this contract. This 

specifically excludes any life-of-need buys related to retrofit, spares or FMS requirements. As the 

contractor identifies parts impacted by obsolescence, the contractor shall initiate processes 

identified in Attachment XXX. If it is determined that a life-of-need buy is required, (INSERT 

CONTRACTOR NAME) will secure those parts to cover up to a total of (INSERT NUMBER and 

SYSTEM TYPE). 

b) Should the government determine that a redesign/requalification of an obsolete part is required, 

the government may authorize (except as described in the paragraph below) and fund all costs 

135
SD-22 – January 2016 

associated with redesign of the replacement part and any delta recurring costs via the procedures 

of the “Changes” clause of this contract and/or another contract vehicle.

c) In the event that the government elects not to fund the cost associated with a redesign of the 

replacement part of the existing part, appropriate authorization (e.g., deviation, waiver, (INSERT 

APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY) approval) will be granted to allow for acceptance of the supplies 

and completion of deliveries under this contract. 

Example 18. Redesign Implementation 

1. Purpose 

The purpose of this effort is for (INSERT CONTRACTOR NAME) to redesign the existing (INSERT ITEM 

NAME), eliminating existing Diminishing Manufacturing Source (DMS) components and mitigating any 

other known DMS issues. 

(INSERT ITEM NAME, NSN, P/N) 

2. Contractor Tasks and Responsibilities 

The contractor shall redesign the existing (INSERT ITEM NAME, P/N), eliminating and mitigating all 

known DMS issues to ensure production capability for at least NNNN years after completion of this 

Delivery Order. 









The new (INSERT ITEM NAME) design shall be a form, fit, function, and interface replacement 

for the current (INSERT ITEM NAME) configuration. 

o

o

The contactor shall perform all necessary testing of the new design to approve it as the 

preferred spare for all USAF configurations of the (INSERT NEXT HIGHER ASSEMBLY).

The contractor shall test new design on contractor test (INSERT TYPE OF ASSET). 

The contractor shall provide MMMM prototypes for Government test. 

The contractor shall create and/or revise all applicable engineering drawings required to identify 

the new design as the preferred spare. 

The contractor shall host design reviews (PDR/CDR) and notify government participants 30 days 

prior to each review. 

Example 19. Redesign Implementation with a Life-of-Need Buy 

1. Purpose 

This Statement of Work (SOW) defines the support effort to be performed by (INSERT CONTRACTOR’S 

NAME) as the contractor, relating to the following unit in the (DESCRIBE WHERE THE UNIT FITS IN 

THE SYSTEM): (INSERT NAME OF ITEM). 

The support effort is to redesign the (INSERT NAME OF ITEM), using a Life Time buy of XXXX’s for a 

fixed life solution; and to begin a process of evaluating an extended time solution of replacing the XXXX’s. 

The fixed life solution will result in NNNN tested, deliverable, and production representative articles with 

documentation. The XXXX replacement process will result in an evaluation of success in replacing an 

XXXX with a new design and will be based on test results. 

2. Contractor Tasks and Responsibilities 

The contractor shall accomplish the following: 

1. Redesign the (INSERT NAME OF ITEM) 

2. Manufacture NNNN pre-production articles per (INSERT NAME OF ITEM) with MMMM being 

deliverable. 

3. Complete testing of (INSERT NAME OF ITEM) to include: 

a. Environmental stress screening test per xxxxx 

136
SD-22 – January 2016 

b. Next higher assembly and system bench testing 

c. Support as necessary of integration testing of delivered articles 

4. Provide documentation and reports: 

a. Engineering drawings including: 

Develop and update existing documents 









Level III engineering drawings (Complete procurement technical data package) 

Acceptance test specification 

System test specification 

UUT schematics 

Generate new documents with updated end-item part number for new assembly 











Statement D 

Revision notice 

Engineering change proposal 

Required JEDMICS metadata 

Formatted and delivered for JEDMICS upload 

b. PDR/CDR 

c. Status reports and final test reports in accordance with CDRL ZZZZ

d. Qualification by similarity statement to verify form, fit, function and interface. 

e. Environmental qualification analysis based on similarity to include: (reference Prime Item 

Development Specification, PIDS, xxxxxxx, dd mmm yyyy paragraph xxx Temperature, (b) 

Vibration, (c) Shock, (d) Explosion, (e) Power, (f) EMC/EMI 

f. Provide Safety of Flight (SOF) certificate before flight test 

5. Address the heat that the (INSERT NAME OF ITEM) produces in the next higher assembly and ensure 

the redesign ameliorates the heat issues. 

6. Ensure the redesign of the (INSERT NAME OF ITEM) works properly with the next higher assembly. 

7. Provide a report describing the results of evaluating the redesign approach and define the next step if 

test results are successful. 

Example 20. Reverse Engineering Implementation 

1.1 Purpose 

1.1.1 Reverse engineer the (INSERT ITEM NAME, NSN, P/N) for the (INSERT NAME OF SYSTEM) 

1.1.2 Develop and deliver a full and complete manufacturing technical data package (TDP) for the 

(INSERT ITEM NAME). 

1.1.3 Develop, test, and deliver one prototype asset. 

1.2 Scope 

1.2.1 The contractor shall complete the following tasks for this effort. Unless otherwise specified, all time 

spans given are in calendar days. The contractor shall deliver a program management plan, DI-MGMT81797 (CDRL XXXX) within 30 days of contract award, which shall define the project schedule and risk 

management plan. 

1.2.2 The contractor shall analyze and reverse engineer the (INSERT ITEM NAME) based on available 

technical data, documents, and physical access to the (INSERT ITEM NAME). The contractor shall 

137
SD-22 – January 2016 

analyze the current (INSERT ITEM NAME), and its detail/subassembly items, for parts obsolescence and 

include logistically supportable replacement parts where obsolescence is found and/or where reliability, 

maintainability, and supportability can be improved. Contractor shall analyze the current material used in 

the window of the (INSERT ITEM NAME) and provide options for more reliable materials to be used in the 

prototype. Any changes to the existing configuration shall be presented to the Government for evaluation 

prior to implementation into the proposed design. The new reverse engineered design shall maintain 

Form, Fit, and Function (FFF) with the current (INSERT ITEM NAME). No changes to the (INSERT ITEM 

NAME) shall be incorporated that will require new or additional field installation and depot test 

procedures, unless approved by Government Engineering. The contractor shall request a meeting with 

Government Engineering, through the cognizant contracting officer, to obtain clarifications on an asneeded basis. 

1.2.3 The contractor shall develop and deliver a prototype asset to the Government for FFF 

test/verification/validation in the Next Higher Assembly or end system. The Contractor will perform 

material UV testing on a sample of the material to be used as the new window for the (INSERT ITEM 

NAME) to duplicate 20 years’ worth of exposure to sunlight. The Government will perform Prototype 

Testing on Next Higher Assembly (NHA) using current technical Orders in conjunction with contractor’s 

test plan. Contractor shall resolve all issues that arise during testing until all technical 

parameters/requirements are met IAW Technical Orders and scope of the project. Contractor will be 

allowed to witness the Prototype Testing at a Government facility unless a portion of the testing must be 

performed in a security restricted environment. 

1.2.4 The contractor shall develop and deliver a Level 3 engineering TDP, Final TDP (CDRL XXXX) to the 

Government for use on future procurement/manufacturing purposes for the (INSERT ITEM NAME) IAW 

... with full/unlimited data rights to the Government. The contractor shall provide a draft procurement TDP 

to the Government no later than 30 days after Critical Design Review (CDR) (CDRL XXXX). The U.S 

Government will have 30 days to review the draft TDP and provide comments to the contractor. The 

contractor will then have 110 days to deliver the final TDP. The TDP shall be delivered in two separate 

deliverables (on two CDs), a draft package and a final package. All forms of technical data submitted as 

part of the final TDP or created under this contract must be submitted with full/unlimited data rights to the 

Government. 

The contractor shall conduct a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and a CDR to include Government 

participation. The contractor shall receive Government’s approval of the PDR and CDR before proceeding 

to the next phase of the project. The Government will have 15 days after PDR and CDR to respond to the 

contractor. Monthly status reports shall be submitted per ZZZZ and all other meeting reports/minutes shall 

be submitted per AAAA, Contractor’s Progress, Status, and Management Report (CDRL XXXX and 

YYYY). The contractor shall develop and deliver a test plan/procedure for the (INSERT ITEM NAME) IAW 

any available depot test or OEM procedures and demonstrating Form, Fit, and Function operational 

capability within the Next Higher Assembly (NHA). Test plan shall be submitted per ..., Test and 

Evaluation Program Plan (CDRL XXXX). Test Reports shall be submitted per ..., Test/Inspection Report 

(CDRL XXXX). 

Appendix D. DMSMS Management Questions for Systems 

Engineering Technical Reviews 

This appendix contains DMSMS management questions intended for use by DMSMS practitioners to 

prepare for six of the SE technical reviews of primary importance: 







Alternative Systems Review (ASR) 

Systems Requirements Review (SRR) 

System Functional Review (SFR) 

138
SD-22 – January 2016 







Preliminary Design Review (PDR) 

Critical Design Review (CDR) 

Production Readiness Review (PRR). 

The questions are designed for the program office, but many also apply to prime contractors and 

subcontractors. The questions are presented in six tables. Tables 15–19, respectively, contain questions 

pertinent to the five DMSMS management steps: Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, and Implement. 

They are further broken down by process. Table 20 contains questions that apply to SE technical reviews 

but do not relate directly to a particular DMSMS step or process. 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Establish 

strategic 

underpinnings 

Has program 

leadership 

identified 

expectations for 

DMSMS 

management 

operations and 

deliverables? 

Has program 

leadership 

defined the 

roles and 

relative 

relationships 

among DMT 

members? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated 

expectations for 

DMSMS 

management 

operations and 

deliverables? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

roles and 

relative 

relationships 

among DMT 

members? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated 

expectations for 

DMSMS 

management 

operations and 

deliverables? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

roles and 

relative 

relationships 

among DMT 

members? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated 

expectations for 

DMSMS 

management 

operations and 

deliverables? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

roles and 

relative 

relationships 

among DMT 

members? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated 

expectations for 

DMSMS 

management 

operations and 

deliverables? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

roles and 

relative 

relationships 

among DMT 

members? 

Establish 

strategic 

underpinnings 

(cont’d)

Has program 

leadership 

determined a 

risk-based 

perspective to 

DMSMS 

management by 

identifying 

criteria for 

which systems 

to monitor and 

which items to 

monitor within 

those systems? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

risk-based 

perspective to 

DMSMS 

management by

updating criteria

for which 

systems to 

monitor and 

which items to 

monitor within 

those systems? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

risk-based 

perspective to 

DMSMS 

 management by

 updating criteria

for which 

systems to 

monitor and 

which items to 

monitor within 

those systems? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

risk-based 

perspective to 

DMSMS 

 management by 

updating criteria 

for which 

systems to 

monitor and 

which items to 

monitor within 

those systems? 

Has program 

leadership 

updated the 

risk-based 

perspective to 

DMSMS 

management by 

updating criteria 

for which 

systems to 

monitor and 

which items to 

monitor within 

those systems? 

139
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Develop a 

DMP 

Has the 

program started 

to develop its 

strategy and 

plan for 

addressing and 

managing the 

impact of 

DMSMS 

issues? 

Has the 

program 

established a 

robust DMSMS 

management 

strategy and 

program that 

identifies 

obsolescence 

due to DMSMS 

issues before 

critical items are 

unavailable? 

Has a 

government 

DMP been 

formally 

approved by 

program 

leadership? 

Is the DMSMS 

management 

program being 

executed per 

the formal 

approved DMP? 

Is the DMSMS 

management 

program being 

executed per 

the formal 

approved DMP? 

Are DMSMS 

impacts a 

consideration 

when analyzing 

alternative 

systems to help 

ensure that the 

preferred 

system is costeffective, 

affordable, 

operationally 

effective, and 

suitable and 

can be 

developed to 

provide a timely 

solution to a 

need at an 

acceptable level 

of risk? 

Is language 

developed and 

included in the 

SOO/SOW/RFP 

documentation 

requiring the 

prime contractor 

to provide its 

strategy and 

plan to address 

the impact of 

DMSMS issues 

and 

obsolescence? 

Is this reflected 

in a draft 

government 

DMP? 

Is the 

government 

DMP being 

updated, as 

necessary? 

Is the 

government 

DMP being 

updated, as 

necessary? 

Develop a 

DMP 

(cont’d)

Does the draft 

DMP identify 

the roles and 

responsibilities 

of the prime/ 

subcontractor 

and third-party 

vendors? 

Does the draft 

government 

DMP identify 

the roles and 

responsibilities 

of the prime/ 

subcontractor 

and third-party 

vendors? 

Does the 

approved 

government 

DMP identify 

the roles and 

responsibilities 

of the 

prime/subcontractor and 

third-party 

vendors? 

140
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Have the roles 

and 

responsibilities 

of the 

government, 

prime/subcontractor, and 

third-party 

vendors been 

established as 

contractual 

requirements? 

Have the roles 

and 

responsibilities 

of the 

government, 

prime/subcontractor, and 

third-party 

vendors been 

established as 

contractual 

requirements? 

Have the roles 

and 

responsibilities 

of the 

government, 

prime/subcontractor, and 

third-party 

vendors been 

established as 

contractual 

requirements? 

Are the roles 

and 

responsibilities 

of the 

government, 

prime/subcontractor and 

third-party 

vendors being 

executed? 

Are the roles 

and 

responsibilities 

of the 

government, 

prime/subcontractor and 

third-party 

vendors being 

executed? 

Are prime 

contractors 

flowing down 

DMSMS 

management 

requirements to 

their 

subcontractors 

and are those 

subcontractors 

flowing down 

requirements to 

their supply 

chains in a 

similar way? 

Are prime 

contractors 

flowing down 

DMSMS 

management 

requirements to 

their 

subcontractors 

and are those 

subcontractors 

flowing down 

requirements to 

their supply 

chains in a 

similar way? 

Are prime 

contractors 

flowing down 

DMSMS 

management 

requirements to 

their 

subcontractors 

and are those 

subcontractors 

flowing down 

requirements to 

their supply 

chains in a 

similar way? 

Is a CDRL 

included for the 

delivery of the 

prime 

contractor’s 

DMP? 

Are prime 

contractors 

flowing down 

DMSMS 

management 

requirements to 

their 

subcontractors 

and are those 

subcontractors 

flowing down 

requirements to 

their supply 

chains in a 

similar way? 

Are prime 

contractors 

flowing down 

DMSMS 

management 

requirements to 

their 

subcontractors 

and are those 

subcontractors 

flowing down 

requirements to 

their supply 

chains in a 

similar way? 

Develop a 

DMP 

(cont’d)

Are there exit 

strategies in the

contracts that 

require all 

sustainment 

providers to 

ensure no item 

end-of-life 

issues are 

unresolved at 

the completion 

of the period of 

performance? 

Are there exit 

strategies in the 

contracts that 

require all 

sustainment 

providers to 

ensure no item 

end-of-life 

issues are 

unresolved at 

the completion 

of the period of 

performance? 

Are there exit 

strategies in the 

contracts that 

require all 

sustainment 

providers to 

ensure no item 

end-of-life 

issues are 

unresolved at 

the completion 

of the period of 

performance? 

Are there exit 

strategies in the 

contracts that 

require all 

sustainment 

providers to 

ensure no item 

end-of-life 

issues are 

unresolved at 

the completion 

of the period of 

performance? 

Are there exit 

strategies in the 

contracts that 

require all 

sustainment 

providers to 

ensure no item 

end-of-life 

issues are 

unresolved at 

the completion 

of the period of 

performance? 

141
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Is the 

government 

conducting 

sufficient 

oversight when 

contractors are 

responsible for 

executing 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Is the 

government 

conducting 

sufficient 

oversight when 

contractors are 

responsible for 

executing 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Is the 

government 

conducting 

sufficient 

oversight when 

contractors are 

responsible for 

executing 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Is the 

government 

conducting 

sufficient 

oversight when 

contractors are 

responsible for 

executing 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Is the 

government 

conducting 

sufficient 

oversight when 

contractors are 

responsible for 

executing 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Form a 

DMT 

Has a partial 

DMT been 

formed? 

Do all identified 

DMT members 

understand their

roles and 

responsibilities 

and have 

adequate 

training to fulfill 

their roles and 

responsibilities? 

Has a partial 

DMT been 

formed? 

Do all identified 

DMT members 

understand their 

roles and 

responsibilities 

and have 

adequate 

training to fulfill 

their roles and 

responsibilities? 

Has the full 

DMT been 

formed? 

Do all identified 

DMT members 

understand their 

roles and 

responsibilities 

and have 

adequate 

training to fulfill 

their roles and 

responsibilities? 

Has the full 

DMT been 

formed? 

Do all identified 

DMT members 

understand their 

roles and 

responsibilities 

and have 

adequate 

training to fulfill 

their roles and 

responsibilities? 

Secure 

DMT 

operations 

funding 

Have current 

and outyear 

DMSMS 

operating 

budgets been 

estimated and 

identified? 

Have current 

and outyear 

DMSMS 

operating 

budgets been 

established, 

approved, and 

funded? 

Have current 

and outyear 

DMSMS 

operating 

budgets been 

established, 

approved, and 

funded? 

Have current 

and outyear 

DMSMS 

operating 

budgets been 

established, 

approved, and 

funded? 

Establish 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

Is the process 

of defining and 

documenting all 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes in 

the government 

DMP 

underway? 

Have all 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes been 

defined and 

documented in 

the government 

DMP? 

142
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Manage 

case 

Has the 

program 

defined 

DMSMS metrics 

that will be 

captured and 

tracked for 

DMSMS cases, 

trends, and 

associated 

resolutions and 

costs? 

Has the 

program 

defined 

DMSMS metrics 

that will be 

captured and 

tracked for 

DMSMS cases, 

trends, and 

associated 

resolutions and 

costs? 

Has the 

program 

identified how it

will capture and 

track DMSMS 

metrics? 

Has the 

program 

developed or 

identified a 

DMSMS case 

tracking 

database? 

Is the program 

using DMSMS 

metrics to track 

DMSMS cases, 

trends, and 

associated 

resolutions and 

costs? 

Is the program 

using DMSMS 

metrics to track 

DMSMS cases, 

trends, and 

associated 

resolutions and 

costs? 

Evaluate 

program 

Has planning 

begun for 

reporting 

DMSMS case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions)? 

Has a plan to 

report DMSMS 

case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) 

been 

established? 

Has a plan to 

report DMSMS 

case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) 

been updated? 

Has a plan to 

report DMSMS 

case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) 

been updated? 

143
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 15. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Prepare (Section 3)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Evaluate 

program 

(cont’d)

Are DMSMS 

case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) 

being reported 

to program 

management? 

Are DMSMS 

case 

management 

metrics (lifecycle costs and 

cost avoidance 

by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) 

being reported 

to program 

management? 

Ensure 

quality 

Has the process 

of establishing 

metrics to 

measure the 

efficiency of 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

begun? 

Have metrics 

been 

established to 

measure the 

efficiency of 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes and 

to drive 

continuous 

process 

improvement? 

Are process 

efficiency 

metrics being 

used to drive 

continuous 

process 

improvement of 

the DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Are process 

efficiency 

metrics being 

used to drive 

continuous 

process 

improvement of 

the DMSMS 

operational 

processes? 

Table 16. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Identify (Section 4)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Prioritize 

systems 

Are mission 

criticality, 

operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related 

costs being 

considered to 

identify and 

prioritize the 

systems and 

subsystems to be 

monitored? 

Are mission 

criticality, 

operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related 

costs being used to 

identify and 

prioritize the 

systems and 

subsystems to be 

monitored? 

Are mission 

criticality, 

operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related 

costs being used to 

identify and 

prioritize the 

systems and 

subsystems to be 

monitored? 

Are mission 

criticality, 

operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related 

cost being used to 

identify and 

prioritize the 

systems and 

subsystems to be 

monitored? 

144
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 16. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Identify (Section 4)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Identify and 

procure 

monitoring 

and 

surveillance 

tools 

Have DMSMS 

forecasting and 

associated data 

collection and 

management tools 

or service 

providers been 

researched? 

Have DMSMS 

forecasting and 

associated data 

collection and 

management tools 

or service 

providers been 

researched and 

selected? 

Have DMSMS 

forecasting and 

associated data 

collection and 

management tools 

been reviewed to 

determine their 

continued suitability 

for sustainment? 

Have DMSMS 

forecasting and 

associated data 

collection and 

management tools 

been reviewed to 

determine their 

continued suitability 

for sustainment? 

Identify and 

procure 

monitoring 

and 

surveillance 

tools (cont’d)

Have tool selections 

been made to 

supplement, as 

necessary? 

Have tool selections 

been made to 

supplement, as 

necessary? 

Collect and 

prepare item 

data 

Have the items 

associated with 

critical system 

functions been 

identified? 

Is a CDRL included 

for the delivery of 

the system BOM? 

Have the items 

associated with 

critical system 

functions been 

updated? 

Have the items 

associated with 

critical system 

functions been 

updated? 

Have notional 

BOMs for the 

system been 

acquired in 

accordance with 

DI-SESS-81656A? 

Are critical materials 

of concern within 

the supply chain 

being considered? 

Are critical materials 

of concern within 

the supply chain 

being considered? 

Have indentured 

BOMs for the 

system been 

acquired in 

accordance with 

DI-SESS-81656A? 

Have indentured 

BOMs for the 

system been 

acquired in 

accordance with 

DI-SESS-81656A? 

Are critical materials 

of concern within 

the supply chain 

being considered? 

145
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 16. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Identify (Section 4)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Does the program 

have a strategy for 

obtaining the 

following: 

 Design disclosed 

items, including 

subtier hardware 

indenture levels 

 F3/proprietary 

design items, 

including subtier 

hardware 

indenture levels 

 Items that are 

single source and

those for which 

the government 

cannot obtain 

data rights and 

the associated 

corrective action 

plans are 

identified? 

Has the program 

obtained the 

following: 

 Design disclosed 

items, including 

subtier hardware 

indenture levels 

 F3/proprietary 

design items, 

including subtier 

hardware 

indenture levels 

 Items that are 

single source and 

 those for which 

the government 

cannot obtain 

data rights and 

the associated 

corrective action 

plans are 

identified? 

Has the program 

obtained the 

following: 

 Design disclosed 

items, including 

subtier hardware 

indenture levels 

 F3/proprietary 

design items, 

including subtier 

hardware 

indenture levels 

 Items that are 

single source and 

those for which 

the government 

cannot obtain 

data rights and 

the associated 

corrective action 

plans are 

identified? 

Collect and 

prepare item 

data (cont’d)

Has the notional 

BOM been loaded 

into the selected 

forecasting/ 

management tool in 

order to perform an 

initial DMSMS items 

availability 

assessment? 

Has the build 

baseline/final design 

BOM been loaded 

into the selected 

forecasting/ 

management tool in 

order to perform a 

DMSMS items 

availability 

assessment? 

Has the BOM been 

regularly updated 

and reloaded into a 

DMSMS 

forecasting/manage

ment tool and/or 

service in order to 

perform periodic 

DMSMS items 

availability 

assessments? 

Have preliminary 

lists of items, 

software, and 

materials to monitor 

been prepared? 

Have lists of items, 

software, and 

materials to monitor 

been updated? 

Have lists of items, 

software, and 

materials to monitor 

been updated? 

146
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 16. DMSMS Management Questions 

 for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Identify (Section 4)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Analyze item 

availability 

Are the selected 

forecasting/ 

management tool or 

the results of 

manual research 

being used to 

identify immediate 

and near-term 

obsolescence 

issues associated 

with the notional 

BOM? For any 

DMSMS issues 

identified, are they 

addressed and 

mitigated prior to 

establishment of the 

build baseline/final 

design BOM? 

Have the selected 

forecasting/ 

management tool or 

the results of 

manual research 

been used to 

identify immediate 

and near-term 

obsolescence 

issues associated 

with the build 

baseline/final design 

BOM? For any 

DMSMS issues 

identified, are they 

addressed and 

mitigated prior to 

acceptance and 

approval of the build 

baseline/final design 

BOM? 

Are the selected 

forecasting/ 

management tool or 

the results of 

manual research 

being used to 

identify immediate 

and near-term 

obsolescence 

issues associated 

with the BOM? 

Is the program 

receiving 

obsolescence 

forecasts on a 

scheduled basis? 

Is the program 

receiving 

obsolescence 

forecasts on a 

scheduled basis? 

Are product 

discontinuation 

notices being 

received regularly? 

Are product 

discontinuation 

notices being 

received regularly? 

Are vendor surveys 

being conducted on 

a regular basis? 

Are vendor surveys 

being conducted on 

a regular basis? 

Are vendor surveys 

being conducted on 

a regular basis? 

Collect and 

update 

programmatic 

and logistics 

data 

Have programmatic 

and predicted 

reliability data needs

for impact 

assessment been 

identified? 

Have programmatic 

and predicted 

 reliability data needs

for impact 

assessment been 

updated? 

Have programmatic 

and predicted 

 reliability data needs 

for impact 

assessment been 

updated and 

collected? 

Have programmatic 

and predicted 

reliability data needs 

for impact 

assessment been 

updated and 

collected? 

147
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 17. DMSMS Management Questions 

for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Assess (Section 5)

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Assess 

impact of 

DMSMS 

issue 

Is a formal 

technology roadmap 

and insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

being developed for 

all, or portions of, the

program/system? 

Has a formal 

technology roadmap 

and approved 

insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

been developed? 

Has a formal 

technology roadmap 

and approved 

insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

been developed and 

funded? 

Has a formal 

technology roadmap 

and approved 

insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

been reviewed for 

potential updates 

and adjustments? 

Does the technology 

roadmap and 

insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

focus on and 

address the 

identification of 

critical items, 

materials, and 

technologies, as well 

as emerging 

technologies? 

Does the roadmap 

and insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

identify critical items, 

materials, and 

technologies, as well 

as emerging 

technologies? 

Does the technology 

roadmap and 

insertion/ 

refreshment strategy 

identify critical items, 

materials, and 

technologies, as well 

as emerging 

technologies? 

Does the technology 

insertion/ 

refreshment plan 

identify critical items, 

materials, and 

technologies, as well 

as emerging 

technologies? 

Is the technology 

insertion/ 

refreshment plan 

being used to 

determine the time 

frame for potential 

DMSMS operational 

impacts? 

Is the technology 

insertion/ 

refreshment plan 

being used to 

determine the time 

frame for potential 

DMSMS operational 

impacts? 

Is the technology 

insertion/ 

refreshment plan 

being used to 

determine the time 

frame for potential 

DMSMS operational 

impacts? 

Is the technology 

insertion/ 

refreshment plan 

being used to 

determine the time 

frame for potential 

DMSMS operational 

impacts? 

Are DMSMS issues 

being considered as 

a basis for adjusting 

the scope or 

schedule of the 

technology insertion/ 

refreshment? 

Are DMSMS issues 

being considered as 

a basis for adjusting 

the scope or 

schedule of the 

technology insertion/ 

refreshment? 

Are DMSMS issues 

being considered as 

a basis for adjusting 

the scope or 

schedule of the 

technology insertion/ 

refreshment? 

Are DMSMS issues 

being considered as 

a basis for adjusting 

the scope or 

schedule of the 

technology insertion/ 

refreshment? 

Assess 

impact of 

DMSMS 

issue 

(cont’d)

Are DMSMS 

operational risks 

being identified and 

prioritized? 

Are DMSMS 

operational risks 

being identified and 

resolved? 

Are DMSMS 

operational risks 

being identified and 

resolved? 

Are DMSMS 

operational risks 

being identified and 

resolved? 

Is the monitoring of 

usage of and 

anticipated demand 

for items and 

materials being 

considered in 

DMSMS impact 

assessment? 

Is the monitoring of 

usage of and 

anticipated demand 

for items and 

materials being 

considered in 

DMSMS impact 

assessment? 

Is the monitoring of 

usage of and 

anticipated demand 

for items and 

materials being 

considered in 

DMSMS impact 

assessment? 

Is the monitoring of 

usage of and 

anticipated demand 

for items and 

materials being 

considered in 

DMSMS impact 

assessment? 

148
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 18. DMSMS Management Questions 

for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Analyze (Section 6) 

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Determine 

DMSMS 

resolution 

Are DMSMS impacts 

being identified and 

addressed during the 

initial item availability 

analysis prior to 

acceptance and approval 

of the notional BOM? 

Are resolutions to 

DMSMS impacts being 

identified and addressed 

during the item 

availability analysis prior 

to acceptance and 

approval of the build 

baseline/final design 

BOM? 

Are resolutions to 

DMSMS impacts being 

identified? 

Is a BCA or AoA being 

performed (including ROI 

calculations) as part of 

resolution determination? 

Is a BCA or AoA being 

performed (including ROI 

calculations) as part of 

 resolution determination? 

Is a BCA or AoA being 

performed (including ROI 

calculations) as part of 

 resolution determination? 

Have all costs associated 

with a resolution been 

considered? 

Have all costs associated 

with a resolution been 

considered? 

Have all costs associated 

with a resolution been 

considered? 

Do mitigation strategies 

clearly address the entire 

system life cycle (not just 

the contract period)? 

Do mitigation strategies 

clearly address the entire 

system life cycle (not just 

the contract period)? 

Do mitigation strategies 

clearly address the entire 

system life cycle (not just 

the contract period)? 

Has resolution 

determination taken into 

account that the most 

cost-effective resolution 

may be found at a higher 

level of assembly? 

Has resolution 

determination taken into 

account that the most 

cost-effective resolution 

may be found at a higher 

level of assembly? 

Has resolution 

determination taken into 

account that the most 

cost-effective resolution 

may be found at a higher 

level of assembly? 

149
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 19. DMSMS Management Questions 

for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Implement (Section 7) 

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Secure 

DMSMS 

resolution 

funding 

Have any DMSMS 

case management 

metrics (life-cycle 

costs and cost 

avoidance by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) been 

identified for use in 

supporting funding 

requests? 

Are DMSMS case 

management 

metrics (life-cycle 

costs and cost 

avoidance by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) being 

used to support 

funding requests? 

Are DMSMS case 

management 

metrics (life-cycle 

costs and cost 

avoidance by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) being 

used to support 

funding requests? 

Are DMSMS case 

management 

metrics (life-cycle 

costs and cost 

avoidance by being 

proactive 

associated with 

DMSMS 

resolutions) being 

used to support 

funding requests? 

Are projected 

current and outyear 

DMSMS resolution 

budgets being 

developed using a 

sound analytical 

basis that is 

persuasive enough 

to obtain necessary 

funding? 

Have projected 

current and outyear 

DMSMS resolution 

budgets been 

established using a 

sound analytical 

basis that is 

persuasive enough 

to obtain necessary 

funding? 

Have projected 

current and outyear 

DMSMS resolution 

budgets been 

established using a 

sound analytical 

basis that is 

persuasive enough 

to obtain necessary 

funding? 

Have projected 

current and outyear 

DMSMS resolution 

budgets been 

established using a 

sound analytical 

basis that is 

persuasive enough 

to obtain necessary 

funding? 

Have the projected 

resolution budgets 

been included in the

program’s Logistics 

Requirements and 

Funding Summary 

(LRFS)? 

Have the projected 

resolution budgets 

 been approved and 

included in the 

program’s LRFS 

documentation? 

Have the projected 

resolution budgets 

been approved and 

included in the 

program’s LRFS 

documentation? 

Have the projected 

resolution budgets 

been approved and 

included in the 

program’s LRFS 

documentation? 

Is funding being 

sought on the basis 

of projected 

resolution budgets?

Have the resolution 

budgets been 

approved and 

funded? 

Have the resolution 

budgets been 

approved and 

funded? 

Have the resolution 

budgets been 

approved and 

funded? 

Implement 

DMSMS 

resolution 

Are the DMSMS 

impacts on the 

notional BOM, 

identified during the 

item availability 

analysis, resolved? 

Are the DMSMS 

impacts on the 

build-baseline/final 

design BOM, 

identified during the 

item availability 

analysis, resolved? 

Are funded DMSMS 

resolutions being 

implemented on a 

timely basis? 

150
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 20. DMSMS Management Questions 

for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Other 

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Not readily 

relatable to 

specific 

organizational 

principles, 

chapters, or 

processes 

Is DMSMS 

management a 

consideration 

when the system 

design approach 

is being 

determined in 

order to minimize 

the impact on 

supportability and 

sustainability? 

Is DMSMS 

management a 

consideration 

when the system 

design approach 

is being 

determined in 

order to minimize 

the impact on 

supportability and 

sustainability? 

Is DMSMS a 

management 

consideration 

when the system 

design approach 

is being 

determined in 

order to minimize 

the impact on 

supportability and 

sustainability? 

Are the following 

addressed: 

 Open system 

architecture 

 Order of 

precedence for 

parts selection 

(use of QML 

parts, 

particularly for 

applications 

requiring 

extended 

temperature 

ranges) 

 Selection of 

parts relatively 

new in their life 

cycle 

 Minimized use 

of custom parts 

 Requirement for 

a preferred 

parts list and 

parts control 

prior to detailed 

design to 

minimize 

obsolescence 

issues 

 Identification of 

shelf and 

operating life 

requirements 

 Identification of 

technology life 

expectancies 

Are the following 

addressed: 

 Open system 

architecture 

 Order of 

precedence for 

parts selection 

(use of QML 

parts, 

particularly for 

applications 

requiring 

extended 

temperature 

ranges) 

 Selection of 

parts relatively 

new in their life 

cycle 

 Minimized use 

of custom parts 

 Requirement for

a preferred 

parts list and 

parts control 

prior to detailed 

design to 

minimize 

obsolescence 

issues 

 Identification of 

shelf and 

operating life 

requirements 

 Identification of 

technology life 

expectancies 

Are the following 

addressed: 

 Open system 

architecture 

 Order of 

precedence for 

parts selection 

(use of QML 

parts, 

particularly for 

applications 

requiring 

extended 

temperature 

ranges) 

 Selection of 

parts relatively 

new in their life 

cycle 

 Minimized use 

of custom parts 

 Requirement for 

a preferred 

parts list and 

parts control 

prior to detailed 

design to 

minimize 

obsolescence 

issues 

 Identification of 

shelf and 

operating life 

requirements 

 Identification of 

technology life 

expectancies 

151
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 20. DMSMS Management Questions 

for Systems Engineering Technical Reviews: Other 

Process ASR SRR SFR PDR CDR PRR 

Not readily 

relatable to 

specific 

organizational 

principles, 

chapters, or 

processes 

(cont’d)

Are DMSMS 

considerations 

incorporated into 

pertinent program 

documentation, 

e.g., IMP/IMS, 

LCSP, LRFS, 

TDS, Product 

Support Plan 

(PSP), and AS?

Are DMSMS 

considerations 

incorporated into 

pertinent program 

documentation, 

e.g., IMP/IMS, 

LCSP, LRFS, 

TDS, PSP, and 

AS?

Are DMSMS 

considerations 

incorporated into 

pertinent program 

documentation, 

e.g., IMP/IMS, 

LCSP, LRFS, 

TDS, PSP, and 

AS?

Are DMSMS 

considerations 

incorporated into 

pertinent program 

documentation, 

e.g., IMP/IMS, 

LCSP, LRFS, 

TDS, PSP, and 

AS?

152
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix E. DMSMS-Related Questions for Logistics Assessments 

This appendix contains DMSMS-related questions intended for use by DMSMS practitioners to prepare 

for pre-IOC and post-IOC LAs. The questions are presented in six tables. Tables 21–25, respectively, 

contain questions pertinent to the five DMSMS management steps: Prepare, Identify, Assess, Analyze, 

and Implement. Table 26 contains questions that apply to LAs but do not relate directly to a particular 

DMSMS step or process. 

Table 21. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Prepare (Section 3) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Establish strategic 

underpinnings 

Has program leadership identified required 

operations and deliverables, defined DMT 

member roles and responsibilities, and 

developed a risk-based approach to 

DMSMS management? 

Has program leadership updated required 

operations and deliverables, defined DMT 

member roles and responsibilities, and 

developed a risk-based approach to 

DMSMS management? 

Develop a DMP Has the program established a robust 

DMSMS management strategy and 

program that identifies obsolescence due to 

DMSMS before items are unavailable? 

Is the DMSMS management program being 

executed per the formal approved DMP? 

Is this reflected in a formal DMP that has 

been approved and signed by leadership? 

Is the government DMP being updated, as 

necessary? 

Does the government DMP identify the 

roles and responsibilities of the prime/ 

subcontractor and third-party vendors? 

Has the government DMP been updated to 

identify the roles and responsibilities of the 

prime/subcontractors and third-party 

vendors as necessary? 

Have these roles and responsibilities for the 

prime/subcontractor and third-party vendors 

been established as contractual 

requirements where applicable? 

Have these roles and responsibilities for the 

prime/subcontractor and third-party vendors 

been established as contractual 

requirements where applicable? 

Is a CDRL included for the delivery of the 

prime contractor’s DMP? 

Where applicable, are there exit strategies 

in the contracts that require all sustainment 

providers to ensure no item end-of-life 

issues are unresolved at the completion of 

the period of performance? 

Where applicable, are there exit strategies 

in the contracts that require all sustainment 

providers to ensure no item end-of-life 

issues are unresolved at the completion of 

the period of performance? 

Is the government conducting sufficient 

oversight when contractors are performing 

DMSMS operational processes? 

Is the government conducting sufficient 

oversight when contractors are performing 

DMSMS operational processes? 

Form a DMT Has the DMT been formed? Has the DMT been formed? 

Secure DMT 

operations funding 

Are DMSMS case management metrics 

(life-cycle costs and cost avoidance by 

being proactive associated with DMSMS 

resolutions) being used to support funding 

requests? 

Are DMSMS case management metrics 

(life-cycle costs and cost avoidance by 

being proactive associated with DMSMS 

resolutions) being used to support funding 

requests? 

Have current and outyear DMSMS 

operating budgets been established, 

approved, and funded? 

Have current and outyear DMSMS 

operating budgets been established, 

approved, and funded? 

Establish DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

Have all DMSMS operational processes 

been defined and documented in the 

government DMP? 

Have all DMSMS operational processes 

been defined and documented in the 

government DMP? 

153
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 21. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Prepare (Section 3) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Manage case Has the program defined DMSMS metrics 

that will be captured and tracked for 

DMSMS cases, trends, and associated 

resolutions and costs? 

Has the program defined DMSMS metrics 

that will be captured and tracked for 

DMSMS cases, trends, and associated 

resolutions and costs? 

Has the program identified how it will 

capture and track DMSMS metrics? 

Has the program identified how it will 

capture and track DMSMS metrics? 

Has the program developed or identified a 

DMSMS case tracking database? 

Has the program developed or identified a 

DMSMS case tracking database? 

Is the program using DMSMS metrics to 

track DMSMS cases, trends, and 

associated resolutions and costs? 

Is the program using DMSMS metrics to 

track DMSMS cases, trends, and associated 

resolutions and costs? 

Evaluate program Has a plan to report DMSMS case 

management metrics (life-cycle costs and 

cost avoidance by being proactive 

associated with DMSMS resolutions) been 

established? 

Has a plan to report DMSMS case 

management metrics (life-cycle costs and 

cost avoidance by being proactive 

associated with DMSMS resolutions) been 

established? 

Are DMSMS case management metrics 

(life-cycle costs and cost avoidance by 

being proactive associated with DMSMS 

resolutions) being reported to program 

management? 

Are DMSMS case management metrics 

(life-cycle costs and cost avoidance by 

being proactive associated with DMSMS 

resolutions) being reported to program 

management? 

Ensure quality Have metrics been established to measure 

the efficiency of DMSMS operational 

processes and to drive continuous process 

improvement? 

Are process efficiency metrics being used to 

drive continuous process improvement? 

Table 22. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Identify (Section 4) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Prioritize systems Are mission criticality, operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related costs being used to 

identify and prioritize the systems and 

subsystems to be monitored? 

Are mission criticality, operational safety, 

and DMSMS-related costs being used to 

identify and prioritize the systems and 

subsystems to be monitored? 

Identify and procure 

monitoring and 

surveillance tools 

Have DMSMS forecasting and associated 

data collection and management tools or 

service providers been researched and 

selected? 

Have DMSMS forecasting and associated 

data collection and management tools been 

reviewed to determine their continued 

suitability for sustainment? 

Have tool selections been made to 

supplement, as necessary? 

Collect and prepare 

item data 

Have the items associated with critical 

functions been identified? 

Have the items associated with critical 

functions been updated? 

Is a CDRL included for the delivery of the 

system BOM? 

Have indentured BOMs for the systems 

been acquired in accordance with 

DI-SESS-81656A? 

154
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 22. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Identify (Section 4) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Has the program obtained the following: 

 Design disclosed items, including subtier 

hardware indenture levels 

 F3/proprietary design items, including 

subtier hardware indenture levels 

 Items that are single source and those for 

which the government cannot obtain data 

rights and the associated corrective 

action plans are identified? 

Has each indentured BOM been loaded into 

the DMSMS forecasting/management tool? 

Has the BOM been regularly updated and 

reloaded into a DMSMS forecasting/ 

management tool or service? 

Have items, materials, and software been 

identified for monitoring? 

Have items, materials, and software been 

identified for monitoring? 

Analyze item 

availability 

Are the selected forecasting/management 

tool or the results of manual research being 

used to identify immediate and near-term 

obsolescence issues associated with the 

BOM? 

Are the selected forecasting/management 

tool or the results of manual research being 

used to identify immediate and near-term 

obsolescence issues associated with the 

BOM? 

Is the program receiving obsolescence 

forecasts on a scheduled basis? 

Is the program receiving obsolescence 

forecasts on a scheduled basis? 

Are vendor surveys being conducted? Are vendor surveys being conducted? 

Are product discontinuation notices being 

received regularly? 

Are product discontinuation notices being 

received regularly? 

Collect and update 

programmatic and 

logistics data 

Have programmatic and predicted reliability 

data needs for impact assessment been 

identified or updated and collected? 

Have programmatic and actual reliability and 

inventory data for impact assessment been 

updated and collected? 

Table 23. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Assess (Section 5) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Assess impact of 

DMSMS issue 

Has a formal technology roadmap and 

approved insertion/refreshment plan been 

developed and funded? 

Has a formal technology roadmap and 

approved insertion/refreshment strategy been 

reviewed for potential updates and 

adjustments? 

Does the technology roadmap and 

insertion/refreshment strategy focus on and 

address the identification of critical items, 

materials, and technologies, as well as 

emerging technologies? 

Does the technology roadmap and 

insertion/refreshment strategy identify critical 

items, materials, and technologies, as well as 

emerging technologies? 

Is the technology insertion/refreshment plan 

being used to determine the time frame for 

potential DMSMS operational impacts? 

Is the technology insertion/refreshment plan 

being used to determine the time frame for 

potential DMSMS operational impacts? 

Are DMSMS issues being considered as a 

basis for adjusting the scope or schedule of 

the technology refreshment? 

Are DMSMS issues being considered as a 

basis for adjusting the scope or schedule of 

the technology refreshment? 

155
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 23. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Assess (Section 5) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Are DMSMS operational risks being 

identified and prioritized? 

Are DMSMS operational risks being identified 

and prioritized? 

Table 24. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Analyze (Section 6) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Determine DMSMS 

resolution 

Are resolutions to DMSMS impacts being 

identified? 

Are resolutions to DMSMS impacts being 

identified? 

Is a BCA or AoA being performed (including 

ROI calculations) as part of the resolution 

determination? 

Is a BCA or AoA being performed (including 

ROI calculations) as part of the resolution 

determination? 

Have all costs associated with a resolution 

been considered? 

Have all costs associated with a resolution 

been considered? 

Do mitigation strategies clearly address the 

entire system life cycle (not just the contract 

period)? 

Do mitigation strategies clearly address the 

entire system life cycle (not just the contract 

period)? 

Has resolution determination taken into 

account that the most cost-effective 

resolution may be found at a higher level of 

assembly? 

Has resolution determination taken into 

account that the most cost-effective 

resolution may be found at a higher level of 

assembly? 

Table 25. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Implement (Section 7) 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Secure DMSMS 

resolution funding 

Is funding to mitigate DMSMS risk being 

identified and obtained? 

Is funding to mitigate DMSMS risk being 

identified and obtained? 

Have projected current and outyear DMSMS 

resolution budgets been established using a 

sound analytical basis that is persuasive 

enough to obtain necessary funding? 

Have projected current and outyear DMSMS 

resolution budgets been established using a 

sound analytical basis that is persuasive 

enough to obtain necessary funding? 

Have these projected resolution budgets 

been approved and included in the 

program’s LRFS documentation? 

Have these projected resolution budgets 

been approved and included in the 

program’s LRFS documentation? 

Have these resolution budgets been 

approved and funded? 

Have these resolution budgets been 

approved and funded? 

Implement DMSMS 

resolution 

Are funded DMSMS resolutions being 

implemented on a timely basis? 

Are funded DMSMS resolutions being 

implemented on a timely basis? 

156
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 26. DMSMS Management Questions for Logistics Assessments: Other 

Process Pre-IOC Post-IOC

Not readily relatable to 

specific organizational 

principles, chapters, or 

processes 

Is DMSMS a consideration when the 

system design approach is being 

determined in order to minimize the 

impact on supportability and 

sustainability? 

Is DMSMS a consideration when the 

system modification approach is being 

determined in order to minimize the 

impact on supportability and 

sustainability? 

Are the following addressed: 

 Open system architecture 

 Order of precedence for parts selection 

(use of QML parts, particularly for 

applications requiring extended 

temperature ranges) 

 Selection of parts relatively new in their 

life cycle 

 Minimized use of custom parts 

 Requirement for a preferred parts list 

and parts control prior to detailed 

design to minimize obsolescence 

issues 

 Identification of shelf and operating life 

requirements 

 Identification of technology life 

expectancies. 

Are the following addressed: 

 Open system architecture 

 Order of precedence for parts selection 

(use of QML parts, particularly for 

applications requiring extended 

temperature ranges) 

 Selection of parts relatively new in their 

life cycle 

 Minimized use of custom parts 

 Requirement for a preferred parts list 

and parts control prior to detailed 

design to minimize obsolescence 

issues 

 Identification of shelf and operating life 

requirements 

 Identification of technology life 

expectancies. 

Are DMSMS considerations incorporated 

into pertinent program documentation, 

e.g., LCSP, LRFS, and PSP?

Are DMSMS considerations incorporated 

into updates of pertinent program 

documentation, e.g., LCSP, LRFS, and 

PSP?

157
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix F. Counterfeit Items and DMSMS 

Counterfeit items are a DMSMS management concern, because the items purchased to mitigate a 

DMSMS issue may be counterfeit.111 This may happen with alternative or substitute items, or even with 

the original items, if they are purchased from an unauthorized supplier.112 Consequently, DMSMS 

resolution options using unauthorized sources have both additional technical risk and costs due to the 

extra screening and testing necessary to ensure that the items are not counterfeit. This appendix begins 

with general background information on the proliferation of counterfeit items, including how they are made 

and what risks are associated with them.113 It then expands on the impact of the counterfeit problem on 

DMSMS management. 

F.1. Background 

The number of counterfeit electronic items is proliferating in the open market, due to a number of factors. 

Below are the two primary factors: 





Electronic scrap assemblies, also known as e-waste (electronic waste), are being shipped from 

all over the world to developing countries. The United States alone produces an estimated 3 

million tons of electronic waste yearly, and the annual world production of e-waste has been 

estimated to be as high as 50 million tons. The developing countries where the counterfeiting is 

most prevalent produce enough of their own e-waste to have an indefinite supply. Entities ranging 

from small business operators to organized crime syndicates have seized upon this material as 

an opportunity to remove and refurbish items, with the intent to resell them with the 

misrepresentation that the product is new. There is no threshold on the dollar value of the items 

being counterfeited, from half-penny capacitors to thousand-dollar-plus complex microprocessors. 

These items might also be falsely represented as higher-grade product (higher speed, larger 

memory capacity, better operating temperature range, or subjected to military screening), which 

further increases the profit potential for the counterfeiter. 

The growth of Internet sales has yielded unprecedented opportunities for profiteers to find a 

market for counterfeit products. A buyer or business owner in the United States has the capability 

to use various Internet search engines to locate an enormous number of advertised items from all 

over the world. A 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted concerns 

about these search engines, because an undercover team procured multiple suspect counterfeit 

items and bogus items.114

F.1.1. How Counterfeit Items Are Made 

Electronic items can be counterfeited in several different ways, including the following: 





Cloning, that is, making a new product “from scratch” and misrepresenting it as the original brand 

Stealing authentic product (bare die or packaged parts) from the manufacturer’s facility before 

completion of all processes 

 

111 The discussions in this appendix are oriented predominately to counterfeit electronic items. The 

generic title of the appendix reflects the intent that the DMSMS implications of counterfeit items apply 

across the board. 

112 Of note is the existence of a small risk that a counterfeit item could be obtained through an 

authorized supplier that has accepted returns from customers of items that were counterfeit; those 

counterfeit items become mixed into the inventory of the authorized supplier and resold. However, the risk 

of receiving a counterfeit item is much smaller when purchasing from authorized suppliers, as opposed to 

unauthorized suppliers. 

113 For more information about generic requirements for managing counterfeit electronic items for any 

organization that procures such items, see SAE AS5553, “Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts; 

Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition.”

114 Government Accountability Office, DoD Supply Chain: Suspect Counterfeit Electronic Parts Can 

Be Found on Internet Purchasing Platforms, GAO-12-375, February 2012. 

158
SD-22 – January 2016 





Re-marking new product to misrepresent the item’s function or pedigree (part number, date code 

or lot, country of origin, plating type, etc.) 

Re-marking used or scrap product to misrepresent the item’s function or pedigree (part number, 

date code or lot, country of origin, plating type, etc.). 

There is no accurate breakdown of the percentage of counterfeiting that can be attributed to each 

example above. However, it is generally accepted that the refurbishment of e-waste is a significant 

contributor to the counterfeit industry. 

When electronic items are salvaged from electronic waste for resale, the processes for salvaging and 

refurbishing the items occur most often in countries where manual labor is cheap and regulatory actions 

are limited or nonexistent. This allows the counterfeiter to maximize profit and evade criminal prosecution. 

Items are removed from the scrap assemblies by melting the solder through uncontrolled heating 

processes. Items are cleaned up.115 Leads are straightened and perhaps chemically treated and retinned 

to disguise signs of previous use. In some cases, cut leads are lengthened by attaching pieces of metal to 

the ends. If necessary, the actual part number and traceability information (lot code, date code, 

manufacturing facility, and country of origin) may be sanded off and a new coating applied to the item. For 

plastic or ceramic devices, this process is commonly referred to as “blacktopping.” A new part number 

and traceability information are then applied to the blacktopping, either by ink or through laser etching. 

Counterfeiters are constantly improving their methods. They have been known to “flat lap” items where 

the item markings are polished off of items and to “microblast” items, which involves media-blasting with 

various materials (such as glass beads, walnut shells, finely ground plastic particles, or dry ice) to remove 

old markings and clean the devices. The newly marked part number may or may not match the actual 

part number. Below are the most common reasons for re-marking a salvaged component: 











To make the used item appear to be new. 

To make a group of items from varied production lots appear to be from one homogeneous lot. 

To make an item appear to be a better, more expensive, or less available version of the actual 

item. 

To make an item appear to be a better, more expensive, or less available version of the same 

item type (not the same item). 

To make an item appear to be any type of “in-demand” item (regardless of whether the item is a 

functional equivalent). 

Only the last example represents an instance in which a user might expect a failure during item or 

system-level testing. In all other cases, the counterfeit product might pass all initial testing, only to fail in 

the application environment much sooner than anticipated, perhaps catastrophically for the user. 

F.1.2. Risks of Using Counterfeit Parts 

Significant risks are associated with the use of counterfeit items. The salvage or refurbishment process 

for used authentic items, as described above, is usually accomplished with little regard for the item’s 

internal integrity. Many plastic-encapsulated electronic items absorb moisture over time. If excess heat is 

applied before the moisture can be baked out, the items are easily damaged by the expanding gas as it 

exits the device. The damage takes the form of microcracks and internal voids that, if they do not cause 

immediate failure, can allow contaminants to seep in (e.g., during a cleaning process that exposes the 

item to unfiltered water) and dramatically reduce the item’s life. Of lesser risk, but still important, is the 

potential for component microcracks caused by mechanical flexure stress imparted onto the soldered 

 

115 As an example, items can sometimes be cleaned by dipping them in unfiltered river water. This 

type of cleaning procedure can allow moisture and contaminates to infiltrate items that are either not 

hermitically sealed or for which the hermitic seal has failed. 

159
SD-22 – January 2016 

items when the populated printed circuit board is bent, twisted, or flexed during the salvage operation. As 

with thermally induced micro-cracks, the component’s life may be reduced.

The storage and shipping of refurbished items116 may also be suboptimal, introducing risk into the 

reliability of the item. Handling of the items in a non–electrostatic discharge (ESD) safe environment 

raises the distinct possibility of electrical damage to the part by applying static charges of thousands of 

volts to the component pins. Static-charge buildup is particularly possible during operations that generate 

repetitive friction, such as sanding a part number off. This type of damage is often latent, reducing the 

reliability of the device. 

Even if new items are simply being recoated, retinned, resold from process rejects, or made entirely from 

scratch, there are reliability risks beyond those associated with authentic items. The testing that a 

program performs may be inadequate to eliminate break-in failures or to ensure operation to the specified 

environment. In addition, issues resulting from the handling, shipping, and storage of the product by 

parties unacquainted with (or unwilling to undertake the expense to counter) the moisture and ESD 

susceptibility of electronic items also apply to this product. 

Finally, there is heightened concern for MilSpec components that have rigorous specifications and testing 

requirements from the OCM. MilSpec devices are not only opportunities for counterfeiters making a profit, 

but they introduce an opportunity for more nefarious “state-controlled” counterfeiters that may be 

interested in tampering with, infiltrating, or controlling a device or system. 

F.1.3. Types of Items Being Counterfeited 

The most commonly counterfeited electronic items are integrated circuits. However, there is still a risk of 

obtaining counterfeit items of other types. In fact, virtually every type of electrical or electronic item has 

been counterfeited. This includes electrical assemblies such as circuit breakers, and entire COTS 

assemblies such as Internet switches, as well as small passive parts such as ceramic capacitors. Figure 

19 shows the distribution of the types of electronic parts commonly counterfeited. The figure is based on 

data generated by ERAI from 2,000 reports from 2012 to 2014.117 As the figure shows, nearly 85 percent 

of counterfeit items are integrated circuits, and another 8 percent of the counterfeits are discrete 

semiconductors such as transistors and diodes. The remaining 7 percent are non-semiconductor types of 

the items, such as capacitors and inductors. When a profit is to be made, counterfeiters will make the 

attempt. 

Figure 19. Breakdown of Counterfeit Electronic Parts 

 

116 Another risk associated with refurbished items pertains to the fact that the items have been 

previously used. If the item has a set life, it may be unknown how much of that life was consumed by its 

original application. This could result in an item needing to be replaced within a shorter period of time 

than anticipated. 

117 ERAI is a privately held global information services organization that monitors, investigates, and 

reports issues affecting the global supply chain of electronics. Since 1995, ERAI has been the industry’s 

primary reporting and investigation service, providing information and risk mitigation solutions to 

electronics professionals worldwide. See http://www.erai.com/Index.aspx. 

160
SD-22 – January 2016 











Source: ERAI. 

A 2012 DLA briefing, “Counterfeit Items Detection and Prevention,” includes an assessment of 

counterfeiting activity discovered within DLA’s supply chain. This assessment could be used to set the 

foundation for risk-based and application-focused approaches to counterfeit avoidance. While industry 

market analyses tend to report counterfeiting risks associated with a subset of products falling within one 

federal supply group (FSG)—59–Electrical and Electronic Equipment Components—the DLA 

assessment covered 69 FSGs managed by DLA. The end result is DLA’s assessment of low, moderate, 

and high counterfeiting risk across all of those FSGs (and the 505 federal supply classes falling within 

them), as illustrated in Figure 20. The FSGs identified as having a high risk for counterfeiting (indicated in 

red) are those associated with incidents discovered by DLA through testing or reported by DLA 

customers. The “Top 5” high-risk FSGs (those with the highest number of incidents) are as follows: 

FSG 59–Electrical and Electronic Equipment Components 

FSG 29–Engine Accessories 

FSG 47–Pipe, Tubing, Hose, and Fittings 

FSG 53–Hardware and Abrasives 

FSG 25–Vehicular Equipment Components. 

FSGs identified as having a moderate risk (indicated in yellow) are those associated with incidents 

reported by other DoD organizations, GIDEP, or industry organizations or those associated with notorious 

markets. FSGs identified as having a low or “base-level” risk are indicated in green.

Figure 20. Assessment of Counterfeit Risk for DLA-Managed FSGs 

161
SD-22 – January 2016 







 

It is suspected that many instances of counterfeiting are unreported. The reasons for this non-reporting or 

underreporting are numerous. First, failures are often attributed simply to quality and reliability issues. 

Because few companies analyze failure mode effects when a system or assembly fails, it is not known 

how large the problem truly is. There may also be some uncertainty regarding the legal responsibility for 

reporting counterfeit items and any legal repercussions for possessing counterfeit material. The 

admission of counterfeit items having been detected in a product may also affect the perception of the 

product with customers and the market in general. Finally, there may be a motivation by some to be 

reimbursed for the items, if they can be returned to their source. 

F.2. Summary of DoD Counterfeit Policy and Key Definitions 

DoD’s primary interest with regard to counterfeit parts pertains to preventing the introduction of counterfeit 

items into DoD’s supply chain and, ultimately, into weapons systems, where they have the potential to 

adversely affect the safety and performance of the warfighter. DoDI 4140.67, “DoD Counterfeit Prevention 

Policy,” does the following: 

“Establishes policy and assigns responsibilities necessary to prevent the introduction of 

counterfeit material at any level of the DoD supply chain”

“Provides direction for anti-counterfeit measures for DoD weapon information systems acquisition 

and sustainment to prevent the introduction of counterfeit materiel”

“Assigns responsibilities for prevention, detection, remediation, investigation, and reinstitution to 

defend the DoD against counterfeit materiel that poses a threat to personnel safety and mission 

assurance.”118

First and foremost, the policy mandates that DoD will “not knowingly procure counterfeit materiel.” 

However, under the assumption that counterfeit material may find its way into the DoD supply chain, the 

118 DoD, “DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy,” DoDI 4140.67, April 26, 2013, p. 1. 

162
SD-22 – January 2016 

policy requires DoD to “employ a risk-based approach to reduce the frequency and impact of counterfeit 

materiel within DoD acquisition systems and DoD life-cycle sustainment processes.”119

Below are three key terms as they are defined in DoD policy: 







Nonconforming product: “A product or the component of a product that has not been 

manufactured, assembled, tested, or inspected in accordance with the terms of the contract, its 

specifications, or drawings, including military specifications.”120

Suspect counterfeit: “Materiel, items, or products in which there is an indication by visual 

inspection, testing, or other information that it may meet the definition of counterfeit materiel.”121

Counterfeit material: “An item that is an unauthorized copy or substitute that has been identified, 

marked, or altered by a source other than the item’s legally authorized source and has been 

misrepresented to be an authorized item of the legally authorized source.”122

Of note, the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), as amended in 2014, added 

specific requirements for defense contractors with respect to the avoidance, detection, containment, and 

reporting of counterfeit electronic items in response to anti-counterfeit sections in the National Defense 

Authorization Acts since 2012.123 A critical element is the requirement for contractors to establish a 

counterfeit electronic item detection and avoidance system. The system should encompass (1) training; 

(2) inspection and test of items based on accepted techniques; (3) use of original manufacturers or 

authorized suppliers to obtain items; (4) reporting (and quarantining) of counterfeit and suspect 

counterfeit items to DoD and GIDEP; (5) flow down of counterfeit-related detection and avoidance 

requirements to subcontractors throughout the supply chain; (6) screening of GIDEP and other sources 

for information on counterfeiting; and (7) minimized use of obsolete electronic parts in order to maximize 

the availability and use of authentic, originally designed, and qualified electronic parts throughout the 

product’s life cycle.

F.3. The Impact of Counterfeit Items on DMSMS Management 

DMSMS issues directly impact the marketability and profitability of counterfeit components (creating an 

incentive for counterfeiters to make and offer such items), because obsolete items are almost always 

more difficult to find than items that are still in production. Over 50 percent of counterfeit electronic items 

identified have been obsolete part numbers, indicating that counterfeiters have made obvious efforts to 

tap the highly profitable DMSMS market. In addition to these items being more likely to command a high 

price, obsolete items are usually available only from the gray market where counterfeiters sell their 

product alongside legitimate unauthorized suppliers.124

Defense and aerospace products are particularly vulnerable to counterfeit items due to item 

obsolescence. Microelectronics, in particular, have life cycles far shorter than those of the defense and 

aerospace products that use them. Robust DMSMS management helps avoid the introduction of 

counterfeit items, because the program will be more likely to deal with authorized suppliers.125 Authorized 

 

119 Ibid., p. 2. 

120 DoD, “Coordination of Remedies for Fraud and Corruption Related to Procurement Activities,”

DoDI 7050.05, May 12, 2014, p. 20. 

121 DoD, “DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy,” DoDI 4140.67, April 26, 2013, p. 13. 

122 Ibid., p. 12. 

123 See National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, Section 818, and DFARS Case 2012-D055. 

124 A legitimate unauthorized supplier is a broker or independent distributor that does not knowingly 

sell counterfeit items. Some independent distributors have robust processes and procedures in place to 

ensure quality. 

125 See Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, memorandum, 

“Overarching DoD Counterfeit Prevention Guidance,” March 2012. 

163
SD-22 – January 2016 

suppliers include the OCM, OCM-authorized sales representative or distributor, a trusted foundry,126 or an 

aftermarket manufacturer that owns the intellectual property rights for the item. Whenever possible, 

DMSMS resolutions should use items from authorized suppliers. The liability of providing counterfeit items 

to a valued customer can be sufficient to bankrupt a supplier, and the associated stigma will inevitably 

damage the brand of the organization if the concern is enough to drive the customer base away. 

Information on approved vendors can be obtained from ERAI, GIDEP, vendor assessment checklists, or 

on-site audits. 

For that reason, the most reputable suppliers are extremely sensitive to the risk of counterfeit items. Such 

companies seek to buy only authentic products and expend significant effort in identifying reputable 

sources. They accomplish this by aggressively monitoring part databases, industry blogs, and internal 

purchasing quality history; participating in industry forums (e.g., the SAE G-19 Committee focused on 

preventing the proliferation of counterfeit electronic parts); standardizing practices (e.g., certification to 

SAE Standard AS 6081, Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and 

Disposition – Distributers Counterfeit Electronic Parts; Avoidance Protocol, Distributers; accreditation to 

SAE Standard AS6496, Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and 

Disposition – Distributers Counterfeit Electronic Parts; Avoidance Protocol, Distributers – Authorized/ 

Franchised Distribution; and to DLA’s Qualified Testing Supplier List); and word of mouth. In addition, 

those companies maintain lists of sources that are not trusted, to ensure they do not purchase items from 

those sources. 

The program may sometimes decide to purchase from unauthorized suppliers because of the expense or 

timeliness of other, less risky solutions. For example, it may not be possible to buy from any qualified 

source, and redesign may be too expensive.127 However, the risk of purchasing a counterfeit item from 

the gray market is high. For integrated circuits, the risk may be nearly 100 percent (the only remaining 

items are refurbished product represented as new items). 

A check, in 2012, of a popular Internet parts search engine found a glut of counterfeits of an integrated 

circuit (randomly selected from an obsolete item listing) that had been discontinued in 1998. In fact, more 

sources were listed on this site for items date coded 2001 or later than during the item’s production range 

of 1998 or earlier. Although certain MilSpecs (for example, MIL-PRF-38535 and MIL-PRF-19500) have 

clauses that require the identification of all known supply chain intermediaries back to the OCM, that 

requirement cannot often be met with material acquired from the open market. The GAO also revealed 

that suspect counterfeit and bogus (the part numbers are not associated with any authentic items) 

military-grade electronic items can be found on Internet purchasing platforms.128

When the selected DMSMS resolution calls for items to be purchased from an unauthorized supplier, 

programs must recognize that costs for minimum inspections and tests should be incurred to ensure that 

counterfeit items do not enter the supply system. In some cases, the cost of these tests may be quite 

substantial and may take a significant amount of time. 

SAE Standard AS 6171, Test Methods Standard: General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit Electrical, 

Electronic Parts, contains a number of test methods for determining an appropriate approach to employ. 

 

126 Trusted foundries can support DMSMS resolutions outside the context of counterfeit items. They 

provide greater protection with respect to information and hardware assurance when replacing items used 

in critical or sensitive applications. Furthermore, they may have the equipment to manufacture obsolete 

items of a less sensitive nature and there is assurance that the work performed there will be well done. 

Finally, they ensure that there will not be any reasonable threats to the disruption of the supply chain. 

There are additional costs associated with these benefits. Procuring an item using trusted services from a 

given supplier is substantially more expensive than procuring the same item through that supplier’s 

normal commercial processes. 

127 Major supply chain disruptions such as floods, fires, and earthquakes may also lead to the 

selection of riskier item sources and thus increase the frequency of counterfeit issues. 

128 Government Accountability Office, DoD Supply Chain: Suspect Counterfeit Electronic Parts Can 

Be Found on Internet Purchasing Platforms, GAO-12-375, February 2012. 

164
SD-22 – January 2016 

The costs should be factored into the determination of the most appropriate resolution option.129 No single 

test method can detect all the various methods of counterfeiting; counterfeiters keep improving the 

process to evade detection. Recommended inspections and tests are listed below: 



















Visual inspection (IDEA-STD-1010), to look for signs of re-marking, refurbishment, repackaging, 

and so forth. 

Testing of marking permanency (IDEA-STD-1010), to attempt to remove subpar ink markings or 

surface coatings. 

Testing of surface finish permanency (IDEA-STD-1010), to attempt to remove surface coatings. 

This should ideally include newer aggressive solvents proven to be more capable (than acetone) 

at removing newer, more robust coatings. 

X-ray fluorescence of item leads, to determine if the item has the correct plating composition. 

Radiological examination, to look for inconsistencies in the internal construction of the item. 

Scanning acoustic microscopy, to determine if there is internal delamination, which may indicate 

exposure to excess thermal stress associated with uncontrolled removal from an assembly. 

Decapsulation and die examination, to determine whether the die markings are consistent and as 

expected for the purchased item. 

Curve trace or direct current electrical test of the device (for microcircuits) or a value 

measurement (for passive devices). 

Full electrical testing or dynamic characterization of selected parameters to search for 

unexpected waveforms or excessive variation. 

Conversely, items may fail some of the tests and still be authentic. The only way to truly maximize the 

confidence in items bought from unauthorized suppliers is to contact the OCM for the items and to have 

that organization review the analysis and weigh in on the authenticity of the product. Unfortunately, OCMs 

are under no contractual obligation to assist with these analyses if the items have been purchased from 

the gray market. In addition, the OCM may not be able to determine, from the test paperwork alone, if the 

items are authentic. 

If the OCM agrees to review the analysis, then the requestor should provide as much detail as possible 

about the product, such as the following: 







A 10X photograph of all external item markings, including bottom-side markings 

Photos of packaging and documentation for the items 

Description of which inspections and tests the items failed and how they failed 

1) High-magnification photos of the die markings. 

OCMs state that an item can often be identified as counterfeit strictly by comparing the manufacturing 

logo, fonts, or lot and date code information against their internal data. However, counterfeiters often are 

expert at copying legitimate manufacturer markings and have access to legitimate die due to the e-waste 

issue. 

 

129 DoD has made changes to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement to comply with 

Section 818 of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, “Detection and Avoidance of 

Counterfeit Electronics” (Public Law 112-81, December 31, 2011). Even with those changes, 

unauthorized suppliers carry greater risk; consequently, conducting additional inspections and tests 

remains a best practice. 

165
SD-22 – January 2016 

If analysis confirms that the items are likely counterfeit or fraudulent, the items must be contained. Return 

of the items for refund or for any other reason is not acceptable, because those items may simply be 

reinserted into the gray market for future resale. 

Counterfeit and fraudulent items must be reported to the appropriate authorities and organizations. DoD 

components are to report all occurrences of suspect and confirmed counterfeit materiel: 

1) To appropriate authorities, deficiency reporting systems, and GIDEP [www.gidep.org] within 60 

calendar days. 

2) To DoD criminal investigative organizations and other DoD law enforcement authorities at the 

earliest opportunity.130

The requirement for defense contractors to report counterfeit electronic items is cited in DFARS, as 

amended in 2014.131

There are two additional risks that a program faces when dealing with high-risk suppliers: 





The inspections and tests above can provide a degree of confidence as to whether a high-risk 

purchase contains authentic or counterfeit items. However, items may pass some or all of the 

tests and still be counterfeit. Additional testing may be required based on the application risk, the 

risk of the component in the application, and the risk of the supplier. The cognizant engineer 

should provide input on the appropriate level of testing, considering the total risk associated with 

the situation. All testing should be performed by a test laboratory that is qualified to perform the 

work. 

If the items turn out to be counterfeit, the program still faces a perhaps more significant DMSMS 

issue. The problem must be resolved before it impacts schedule or readiness and a great deal of 

time would have been consumed for testing an infeasible resolution approach. 

 

130 DoD, “DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy,” DoDI 4140.67, April 26, 2013, p. 9. 

131 See National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, Section 818, and DFARS Case 2012-D055.

166
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix G. Accessing Organic Services and Capabilities to Mitigate 

DMSMS Issues 

Today’s PMs, PSMs, and technical personnel are finding increasingly significant challenges in locating 

and securing supply solutions for legacy DoD systems. These challenges can only increase as the 

service life of DoD systems is extended. A number of unique engineering, manufacturing, and 

sustainment capabilities exist within the government’s industrial base and can be leveraged to help meet 

DMSMS challenges. 

The government’s industrial base encompasses all of the manufacturing and sustainment providers that 

are owned and operated by the government. This includes the DoD locations termed arsenals and 

depots, as well as a portion of the National Laboratory system within the Department of Energy. 

A list of all government industrial base locations is maintained to foster DMSMS community awareness of 

their capabilities and to expedite communications. Locations on this list have some manufacturing 

capabilities on-site and can support DoD organizations. The location list is periodically updated with 

information such as key contacts and addresses. Each key contact has agreed to be an initial point of 

contact for DoD personnel who are soliciting help on DMSMS issues. In addition, a more specific 

capabilities matrix has been created for participating government industrial base locations to specify their 

areas of manufacturing expertise, as well as to describe their mechanical, electronic, materials, and T&E 

capabilities. 

The location list and capabilities matrix are designed to be complementary when used in tandem. For 

example, a DMSMS practitioner who has unfulfilled requirements for integrated circuit manufacturing can 

review the capabilities matrix to identify which government locations have those capabilities. Then the 

location list can be used to contact the respective locations to pursue particular DMSMS resolutions for 

that issue. 

The most recent update of the government industrial base location list and capabilities matrix can be 

accessed within the DKSP. 

167
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix H. DMSMS Knowledge Sharing Portal 

The DKSP contains DMSMS-related information, resources, and material. Use of the DKSP will enable 

the DMSMS community, both organic and contractor, to implement best practices for robust DMSMS 

management. The DKSP is supported by the Defense Standardization Program Office 

(https://www.dsp.dla.mil) and is currently located within the DAU Acquisition Community Connection 

(ACC) website (https://acc.dau.mil). The DKSP is just one of a number of communities of practice (CoPs) 

hosted by the ACC, whose purpose is to connect people and acquisition know-how across DoD and 

industry. CoPs enable interaction and sharing of resources and experiences to support job performance, 

avoid duplication of effort, and advance the connection of people and ideas. 

Participation in the ACC is free and completely voluntary, and much of its content is open to the public, 

requiring no login to access the extensive knowledge base. Although much of the information is publicly 

available, individuals who qualify can request ACC membership access. Becoming an ACC member 

provides additional capabilities that guests do not have. Those capabilities include accessing other 

members’ contact information, initiating and participating in discussions, contributing and sharing 

knowledge, creating bookmarks, subscribing to updates, and accessing restricted community knowledge. 

The DKSP can be accessed through the following link: https://acc.dau.mil/dmsms. 

The DKSP content is organized by topic, shown on the left of the page, in a user-friendly format for easy 

navigation. The topics are as follows: 













Conferences and Events. The content is broken down into (1) DMSMS conferences and (2) other 

DMSMS-related events (workshops, clinics, forums, symposiums, etc.). 

DMSMS Training Courses. The content lists available DMSMS and other related training. 

Organizations and Groups. The content is broken down by organization: DoD, DLA, Other 

Government, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Industry. 

Tools and Management Aids. The content is broken down by organization: DoD, DLA, Other 

Government, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Industry. 

Policy and Guidance. The content is organized by policy, guidance, and manuals/handbooks for 

DoD, DLA, Other Government, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps and by standards for 

industry. 

DMSMS Library. The content is broken down by organization: DoD, DLA, Other Government, 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Industry. 

168
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix I. DMSMS Quality Assurance Process 

A quality management system is the basis for QA. A QMS is an overarching framework that defines the 

organizational structure, responsibilities, methods, data management, processes, resources, customer 

satisfaction, and continuous improvement. The mitigation of DMSMS issues must be controlled in a QMS 

to receive optimal benefit and ensure consistency over time. A well-defined QMS can also ensure that the 

same high level of quality service and products can be produced regardless of personnel changes. This 

appendix focuses on control of DMSMS management processes. 

I.1. Quality Plan 

The QMS should call for a quality plan (as part of the DMP) that defines the checks of the system or 

product necessary to ensure quality, that is, to ensure that processes and product are in control and meet 

defined requirements. An excellent means of controlling processes is to document the responsibilities and 

methods associated with the processes in a series of procedures or work instructions and to establish 

quality checks at optimal points within the process to ensure that the work product meets defined quality 

standards. Quality checks are verifications to demonstrate whether the process is operating as defined. 

The quality plan should include the identification, collection, and monitoring of meaningful metrics to 

ensure that the process is successful. Metrics provide information as to whether the process must be 

adjusted to meet the intended outcome. 

Different entities may use specific nomenclature to name the written process definitions, such as standard 

operating procedures, or work instructions. The nomenclature chosen for this documentation does not 

matter. This appendix suggests a naming scheme to provide clarity on the concept being presented. 

A written procedure outlines how to perform a process. This level of documentation typically applies to the 

processes common across a function, such as DMSMS support. Because DMSMS support can vary 

significantly from one platform to the next, a second tier of process definition should be developed. This 

second level, often known as work instructions, is used at a work-group level to define how to perform a 

task. Each platform support team should develop its unique DMSMS support work instruction tailored to 

the support of its specific platform. 

As an example of how this system may function, consider the processes to collect and disseminate PDNs 

and obsolescence event data, often referred to as “Alerts.” PDNs are published by part manufacturers to 

inform the industry that a part is targeted for discontinuance. A procedure could be written for how to find, 

confirm, and document this obsolescence event data. The platform support teams may take different 

actions in response to an alert; each team could write work instructions to describe its own specific 

process. 

The general workflow in support of DMSMS management consists of data collection from many diverse 

sources, data compilation and analysis, risk assessment, and report or briefing development. Because 

data collection, manipulation, and analysis are at the heart of DMSMS team activities, data standards 

should be clearly defined. Data standards define such aspects of data management as content accuracy, 

data content, and data entry standards. 

To establish quality checks, the DMT should review all of the process inputs and outputs. For each data 

stream, whether input or output, the DMT must decide the characteristics of a good record. The DMT 

should document these characteristics and make them available to the DMT members who may create or 

process that type of record. 

The DMT determines the method to identify records that do not meet the defined standards. Quality 

checks can range from automated comparison of records to defined standards to simply having an 

experienced team member review the work of a less-experienced DMT member. 

The DMT should review the process flow and determine where to insert quality checks. These locations 

are the points at which errors can be identified and corrected before additional work is applied and before 

the customer is affected. The quality plan should include the inspection points, the inspection method, 

and the error correction mechanism. 

To demonstrate a quality check of data content accuracy, consider the record of availability status of a 

highly complex electronic part. In general, the obsolescence of such a part, in contrast to a part that is of 

low complexity, has a greater impact on the mission of the platform, and the mitigation of such a part can 

169
SD-22 – January 2016 

be much more difficult. Therefore, the accuracy of the data concerning this type of part is critical. In such 

a situation, the DMT may decide that verifying the content accuracy of the availability status of this type of 

part may require manufacturer contact or no less than two predictive tool providers to report the 

availability status for the part. The quality check to ensure content accuracy for this type of record could 

be to check that the availability record was verified by contact with the manufacturer or by the use of more 

than one predictive tool. For example, the DMT may decide that the part description in a part availability 

record must exactly match the approved list of part descriptions. The quality check would then determine 

whether, in fact, the entry for a part description matches the entry on the table of approved parts. 

This same principle can be applied in other data streams, such as the recording of mitigation efforts, often 

called case data. The DMT may decide that the implementation date for the mitigation of an obsolete part 

should be recorded. In this situation, a quality check would verify the presence of an implementation date 

associated with all records tagged as “implemented.”

I.2. Metrics 

Metrics measure the status of processes and activities within a quality plan. Keep in mind that metrics 

discussed in this appendix are measuring the DMSMS management processes operated by the DMT. 

This discussion does not include metrics focused on mission impact, such as cost avoidance by being 

proactive. Among the reasons that a process fails are budgeting of too little time or too little money, 

inadequate planning, constantly changing goals, lack of process knowledge, and ineffective 

communication. Often when a process is in danger of failing, management is unaware of the problems. 

One of the best tools for avoiding process failures is to track key indicators of process health. The data 

should be presented in a meaningful way to help process managers make the proper decisions, take 

corrective steps on processes, or both. It is also important to define the right measurable periods that can 

cover possible gaps in the control of the measuring indicators, as well as allow control of the situation 

upfront if a failure occurs within the measurable intervals. 

Process-specific metrics generally must have another figure—such as an industry benchmark or 

regulatory guidelines—against which they can be compared. However, sometimes metrics apply only to a 

particular organization, so no industry benchmarks would be available. 

Five general criteria are typically used when defining metrics for a process: 











Time 

Cost 

Resources (e.g., person-hours) 

Quality 

Actions. 

When metrics are first applied to a process, it is often difficult to separate the categories of time, cost, and 

resources. Tracking metrics that provide information on combinations of two or more of these concepts is 

a viable approach. As the QMS matures and the situation necessitates, metrics can be redefined to 

provide more focused data. Below are two examples: 





Electronic part availability research is necessary for programs that have parts lists or BOMs. 

This research can be time-consuming. Establishing the availability of these parts is also a 

product supplied by the predictive tool suppliers. In general, it could be more cost-effective and 

timely to the DMSMS professional to obtain part status data from at least one predictive tool 

supplier. One measure of resource usage would be to track the percentage of parts that the 

predictive tool companies recognize. By working with the predictive tool suppliers to increase the 

recognition rate of parts, the team is effectively moving part research from an internal process to 

a subscription deliverable and, thus, is using resources more effectively. 

Data management in support of DMSMS management contains several distinct processes. A 

metric to provide feedback on adherence to schedule could be obtained by tracking the time to 

perform the intermediary processes, such as the time from receipt of a parts list or BOM to 

identification of the components to be monitored for availability. The time to perform the 

170
SD-22 – January 2016 

intermediary processes is then compared to a standard time established for this process. Metrics 

values consistently over the standard indicate that a problem exists in the process. Metrics 

consistently under the standard indicate a need to adjust the standard because the process has 

been improved. 

The quality metric focuses on whether appropriate actions are taken in response to finding a process 

defect, not the existence of defects. The metric chosen should provide insight as to whether defects are 

tolerated or, even worse, ignored. In data management, a defect is a situation in which a defined standard 

is not met. Below are some examples: 





The DMT may require, in the quality plan, measurement of the conformance of configuration 

records to defined standards. The associated metric would be to track the number of defective 

configuration records periodically and then to show the trend for this value. If the number of errors 

is higher than the acceptable quality level or increases over time, a problem exists with the quality 

of the CM process. 

The DMT may choose to open a mitigation record for each monitored part that has an 

obsolescence issue. The DMT could then track the number of parts with obsolescence issues 

that do not have an associated mitigation record. In this situation, the quality of the program 

support process is being measured. 

The actions metric focuses attention on identifying outstanding action items as a means of determining 

possible barriers to the process success. To use this type of metric, the DMT should maintain an action 

item summary in support of the process steps. This action item summary should then be reviewed to 

develop metrics: 





Any differences between the action completion date and the projected completion date may 

indicate that a problem existed for that task. The difference between the action completion date 

and the projected completion date should be compared to a calculated standard established for 

support of that platform. This metric is most meaningful for DMT members accustomed to setting 

reasonable projected completion dates. 

A quick metric to calculate is the number of open items. This metric measures multiple program 

aspects. This metric may measure the skill of the PM in capturing the steps necessary to support 

the program. This metric also may indicate that a project is experiencing difficulties in completing 

tasks. 

Beyond these general metric categories are some more intangible signs that a project may be in trouble. 

These signs include a general lack of interest in the project, poor communication among team members, 

a fear of talking about project problems, and a generalized lack of project advancement. 

To be successful, metrics must be well thought out and consistently applied. The DMT must be very clear 

as to the meaning of the metric values. Finally, the DMT must act upon the process health conclusions 

provided by the metrics in a timely manner to correct or improve the process, metric, or both. 

I.3. Process Analysis 

A detailed analysis of the processes used in DMSMS management can be valuable both in eliminating 

defects in the process and in improving efficiency. One type of business process analysis that has been 

used successfully to improve a DMSMS process is Lean Six Sigma (LSS), a methodology that employs a 

collaborative team effort to improve performance by systematically identifying and removing “waste.” In 

the LSS context, “waste” means any nonproductive, obstructive, or error-causing parts of a business 

process. These components of waste are called “defects.” The purpose of an LSS analysis is to identify 

the defects in the process and to devise approaches to eliminating or mitigating them. The DMAIC 

approach is one that is commonly used for an LSS analysis: DMAIC means “Define, Measure, Analyze, 

Improve, Control,” and it comprises the steps in the overarching process used by the analysis team. The 

final step is to put in place controls that ensure that defects are minimized and thus maintain the overall 

quality of the process. 

Such an approach could be applied, for example, to the DMSMS management of COTS assemblies for 

which status is determined through vendor surveys. 

171
SD-22 – January 2016 

In a DMSMS COTS process, the functions that must be performed are to monitor items for potential 

obsolescence, identify parts impacted, evaluate need for opening a DMSMS case, and implement a case 

when required. The process to accomplish these functions could be composed of four basic 

subprocesses: 









Market surveillance—use vendor surveys, vendor contacts, website analysis, and forecasting 

tools to discover potential parts obsolescence issues. 

Verify item identity, stocks on hand, and demand trends for the item at issue. 

Determine if the obsolescence issue will impact the program via analysis of demand and 

stockage levels, from which “health charts” may be constructed. 

Open and evaluate cases, determine preferred resolutions, and track resolutions. 

COTS obsolescence management is characterized historically as a largely manual effort with extensive 

human reactions that are subject to error, not to mention inefficiencies. Variability and non-value-added 

steps result in additional labor, schedule delays, and increased costs. Such defects can then be 

effectively identified and addressed via LSS methodologies. Developing an automated database is a first 

step toward a faster, more efficient, and less error-prone process. 

One DMSMS management team that conducted an LSS analysis of its DMSMS process for COTS items 

identified 131 defects occurring in an approximate 1-year period in market surveillance of COTS parts. 

The LSS analysis team defined a “reactive defect” to be one wherein an identified obsolescence date 

occurred in the past and “updates within 4 months defects” were instances in which the date occurred 

within 4 months of the current date (thus limiting the time available for case analysis and determination of 

resolution, if required). Process changes identified to address these defects resulted in substantial 

reductions in defects (25 percent or more) and attendant improvements in process efficiency on the order 

of 25–30 percent or more (depending on the subprocess). 

To implement an LSS project for DMSMS, an LSS team is formed, headed if possible by an LSS “black 

belt.”132 Team membership should comprise representatives knowledgeable in the various aspects of the 

process under scrutiny. 

Assuming the DMAIC procedure will be followed, in the Define phase of the project, the team focuses on 

the overall process and identifies the overarching “problem” causing inefficiencies and errors. The team 

comprehensively examines the process and narrows down the areas of deficiency. An initial process map 

is created, and the metrics and data identified that can quantify the problem. It is particularly useful to 

document the value stream map (VSM) that describes the value-added workflow steps that produce 

required products. The VSM facilitates identifying non-value-added steps within the process for potential 

elimination or at least modification to create value. This phase ends with the drafting of a charter for the 

project containing a broad statement of the problem and the overall goals of the project. In addition, 

anticipated roadblocks are identified and a plan to overcome them formulated. 

The Measure phase includes the development of a data collection method to capture pertinent aspects of 

the current processes and their outputs, the collection of data, and the establishment of a baseline for 

measuring improvements. For example, the time to accomplish a process segment might be a meaningful 

measure to examine. Another would be the trend in defect rate over time. 

The Analyze phase determines the most critical root causes of defects from as many perspectives as 

possible. Team “brainstorming” sessions generate ideas to bring about process improvement. This 

process should be wide open, with the objective of identifying as many ideas as possible. The team then 

filters, sorts, combines, evaluates, and distills the improvement ideas into a feasible, most promising set. 

 

132 If not available in house, a consultant should be engaged to advise the team. 

172
SD-22 – January 2016 

In the Improve step, an implementation plan is formulated and initiated. If the list of desired improvements 

is lengthy, it will likely be necessary to time-phase implementation due to budgetary, operational, or other 

constraints, such as equipment or software availability. 

Lastly, the Control step ensures that the improvements are being realized. A process of continuous 

improvement will seek to identify further improvements. 

Appendix J. DMSMS Program Capability Levels 

The DMP should include plans for achieving the target DMSMS capability level. This appendix contains 

information to help guide a decision on the appropriate level for a program. 

Table 27 identifies the program capability levels for each DMSMS management step and process. The 

levels are defined as follows: 









Level 1 represents minimal DMSMS management capability. Practices are largely reactive. 

Level 2 represents a DMSMS management capability greater than Level 1. Practices are 

somewhat proactive in situations where proactive practices are needed. 

Level 3 represents a DMSMS management capability greater than Level 2. Proactive practices 

are used when needed. 

Level 4 represents robust DMSMS management capability. Comprehensive efforts are being 

applied whenever required. 

A program should use the table as the basis for determining the current state of its DMSMS management 

practices. This is done by examining each row of the table and identifying what is being done. If the 

program does not have a DMP, then it is effectively below capability Level 1. The DMP should provide a 

basis for systematically progressing through the capability levels to achieve its target. Several factors 

should be considered when determining the appropriate target capability level for a program: 













A lower capability level could be sufficient near the end of a system’s life cycle. 

A higher capability level might be needed for more complex systems, because such programs are 

more likely to encounter DMSMS issues. However, smaller programs may be seriously affected, 

depending on the technologies used. 

A higher capability level cannot be achieved without significant DMSMS subject matter expertise 

and DMSMS training for the entire DMT. 

Not every DMSMS management process must be at the same capability level. 

A program cannot immediately move from a low capability level to a high capability level; the 

transition should be gradual. 

Resource constraints may exist, either for a single program or for a group of programs. 

173
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 27. DMSMS Program Capability Levels 

Step Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Prepare Establish 

strategic 

under-pinnings 

Strategic 

underpinnings 

not established 

Program 

leadership sets 

strategic 

underpinnings 

for DMSMS 

management 

Program leadership 

sets strategic 

underpinnings for 

DMSMS 

management 

Program leadership 

sets strategic 

underpinnings for 

DMSMS 

management 

Develop a 

DMP 

DMP developed DMP approved 

and signed by 

program 

leadership 

DMP approved and 

signed by program 

leadership and 

updated periodically 

DMP approved and 

signed by program 

leadership and 

updated periodically 

DMP calls for no 

or minimal 

government 

oversight of 

contractor 

activities 

DMP calls for 

limited 

government 

oversight of 

contractor 

activities 

DMP calls for 

extensive 

government 

oversight of 

contractor activities 

DMP calls for 

extensive 

government 

oversight of 

contractor activities 

Marginal 

contract 

requirements 

covering some 

aspects of 

DMSMS 

management 

Contract 

requirements 

established for 

all significant 

and applicable 

aspects of 

DMSMS 

management 

Contract 

requirements, to 

include exit clauses, 

established for all 

significant and 

applicable aspects of 

DMSMS 

management 

Contract 

requirements, to 

include exit clauses 

and incentives, 

established for all 

significant and 

applicable aspects of 

DMSMS 

management 

Form a DMT DMSMS point of 

contact 

established (but 

retains other 

duties) 

DMSMS point of 

contact 

established (but 

retains other 

duties) 

Full DMT formed 

including all 

stakeholders with an 

understanding of 

their roles and 

responsibilities 

Full DMT formed 

including all 

stakeholders with an 

understanding of 

their roles and 

responsibilities 

No independent 

DMSMS SME 

Limited funding 

for the use of an 

independent 

DMSMS SME 

Independent DMSMS 

SME funded to assist 

the government with 

overseeing the prime 

contractor, give an 

independent 

perspective on 

issues and 

resolutions, and 

provide general 

DMSMS 

management advice 

Independent DMSMS 

SME funded to assist 

the government with 

overseeing the prime 

contractor, give an 

independent 

perspective on 

issues and 

resolutions, and 

provide general 

DMSMS 

management advice 

DMSMS point of 

contact has 

limited training 

DMSMS point of 

contact trained 

DMT trained DMT members have 

advanced DMSMS 

training 

174
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 27. DMSMS Program Capability Levels 

Step Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Secure DMT 

operations 

funding 

No DMSMSearmarked 

funding 

Funded to 

operate at Level 

2 

Funded to operate at 

Level 3 

Funding shortfall and 

impact identified and 

reported to decision 

makers 

Funded to operate at 

Level 4 

Prepare 

(cont’d)

Establish 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

entirely ad hoc 

and reactive 

DMSMS 

operational 

processes 

defined, but not 

documented 

DMSMS operational 

processes defined 

and documented, 

and processes are 

proactive when 

needed 

DMSMS operational 

processes defined 

and documented, 

and processes are 

proactive when 

needed 

Manage cases No record 

keeping or 

metrics 

Ad-hoc record 

keeping and 

some metrics 

Record keeping 

formalized and 

metrics collected 

Record keeping 

formalized and 

metrics collected 

Evaluate 

program 

No metrics 

collected 

Limited metrics 

collected, limited 

attempt to 

evaluate 

program

Metrics aggregated 

and analyzed to 

improve program 

performance; metrics 

used to justify 

operational budgets 

Metrics widely 

accepted and used 

by program 

management 

Ensure quality No QA metrics 

collected 

Limited QA 

metrics 

collected, limited 

attempt to 

improve process 

QA metrics 

established and used 

for corrective action 

and continuous 

process improvement 

QA metrics 

established and used 

for corrective action 

and continuous 

process improvement 

Identify Prioritize 

systems 

No prioritization 

of subsystems 

Subsystems and 

items prioritized 

for DMSMS 

management 

execution 

Materials and 

software explicitly 

considered 

Materials and 

software explicitly 

considered 

No prioritization 

of items 

Items evaluated 

to the lowest 

level to 

determine a riskbased approach 

to DMSMS 

management 

activity 

Materials and 

software explicitly 

considered 

Materials and 

software explicitly 

considered 

Identify and 

procure 

monitoring and 

surveillance 

tools 

Predictive tools 

and data 

management 

tools only 

partially in place 

Predictive tools 

and data 

management 

tools in place 

Comprehensive 

DMSMS 

management 

systems in place 

Comprehensive 

DMSMS 

management 

systems in place 

175
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 27. DMSMS Program Capability Levels 

Step Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Collect and 

prepare item 

data 

Only 

miscellaneous 

item data 

collected; 

everything 

driven by PDNs 

or the inability to 

procure the item 

BOM data 

collected, but 

may not be 

indentured 

Indentured BOM data 

collected (including 

software and 

materials); vendors 

surveyed for 

assemblies, 

mechanical parts, 

software, and 

materials 

Indentured BOM data 

collected (including 

software interface 

specifications and 

materials); vendors 

surveyed for 

assemblies, 

mechanical parts, 

software, and 

materials 

Identify 

(cont’d)

BOM data errors 

not fully 

corrected 

BOM data errors 

corrected 

Items and materials 

prioritized and 

determination made 

regarding what to 

exclude from 

proactive monitoring 

All items and 

materials prioritized 

and determination 

made regarding what 

to exclude from 

proactive monitoring 

Analyze item 

availability 

Predictive tools 

used 

occasionally 

Results of 

predictive 

analyses for 

electronic items 

examined 

continually 

Results of at least 

two predictive tools 

examined continually 

for electronic items 

Vendors surveyed

periodically for 

MaSME items and 

software 

Results of at least 

two predictive tools 

examined continually 

for electronic items 

Vendors surveyed

periodically for 

MaSME items and 

software 

Collect and 

update 

programmatic 

and logistics 

data 

No logistics and 

programmatic 

data collected 

Limited logistics 

and 

programmatic 

data collected 

Some logistics and 

programmatic data 

collected for impact 

assessment 

Comprehensive 

logistics and 

programmatic data 

collected for impact 

assessment 

Assess Assess 

impact of 

DMSMS issue 

Ad hoc; only 

when PDN 

 received 

Only parts 

availability 

considered 

Some logistics and 

programmatic data 

and vendor surveys 

being used to 

determine when an 

operational impact 

will occur 

Extensive logistics 

and programmatic 

data and vendor 

surveys (including 

software and 

materials) being used 

to determine when 

an operational impact 

will occur 

No priorities No priorities Rough priorities 

being assigned 

Specific priorities 

being assigned; next 

higher levels of 

assembly being 

examined for 

operational impact 

No technology 

roadmaps 

Technology 

roadmaps 

not used to 

determine 

impact 

Technology 

roadmaps being 

used to determine 

impact 

Technology 

roadmaps being 

used to determine 

impact 

176
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 27. DMSMS Program Capability Levels 

Step Process Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Analyze Determine 

DMSMS 

resolution 

Ad hoc; limited 

cost data used 

AoA conducted 

using unrefined 

cost factors 

BCA conducted 

using refined cost 

factors, tailored to 

the specific 

problem 

Resolution options 

determined at item 

level and for higher 

levels of assembly 

BCA used where 

necessary 

Implement Secure 

DMSMS 

resolution 

funding 

No resolution 

budgets; funding 

sought on caseby-case basis 

No resolution 

budgets; funding 

sought on caseby-case basis 

Resolution budgets 

funded based on 

projections of issues; 

outyear budgets 

unfunded 

Active engagement 

in obtaining other 

sources of funding; 

outyear budgets 

programmed 

Implement 

DMSMS 

resolution 

No follow-up Minimal 

oversight of 

execution 

Comprehensive 

oversight of 

execution 

Comprehensive 

oversight of 

execution 

Appendix K. Lead-Free Electronics and DMSMS Resolutions 

For more than 50 years, the electronics industry has relied on tin-lead (SnPb) solder as the primary 

means of interconnection between electronic devices.133 The European Union’s RoHS directive, issued in 

January 2003, and other international and domestic mandates to eliminate materials deemed hazardous 

to health have forced the electronics industry to adopt solders and termination finishes free of lead (Pb). 

Although aerospace and defense electronics are excluded from these Pb-free mandates, many of their 

component suppliers are consumer electronics companies, driven by the needs of high-volume 

customers that demand RoHS compliance to enter or preserve European markets. Suppliers sometimes 

provide products in two forms, but usually only temporarily, before converting to a single Pb-free (RoHScompliant) version. New products are being introduced almost exclusively in Pb-free form. 

Nearly all parts and material suppliers and most board assemblers represent the lowest tiers of the global 

electronics supply chain. Avionics OEMs and logistics, maintenance, and repair providers draw upon this 

global supply chain, along with a few captive aerospace suppliers, to provide electronic subsystems to 

platform integrators and operators. As a result, highly demanding aerospace and defense applications are 

being forced to use components targeted for high-volume commercial markets with far less demanding 

requirements. Manufacturing in the global electronics supply chain cannot be controlled by the lowvolume aerospace and military electronics customers. 

Avionics, defense electronics, and other high-reliability electronic applications differ in significant ways 

from the vast majority of commercial and consumer electronic applications. Field environments often 

include extreme temperature and humidity, high altitude, high levels of shock and vibration, underwater 

exposure, or the extremes of space. Product lifetimes are often measured in decades, rather than in 

years. Contrary to most commercial practices, maintenance and repair activities are routinely performed 

down to the replacement of individual components on circuit cards. These maintenance and repair 

activities often occur many years after initial manufacture, at varied and distant locations, and under the 

control of agencies not always under the direction of the OEM. Finally, failure of the equipment to perform 

may have dire consequences. 

The reliability of SnPb interconnections is well known and meets the requirements of these more 

demanding applications. In contrast, the scientific information indicates increased reliability risks in using 

 

133 The material in this appendix was taken from Pb-Free Electronics Risk Management (PERM) 

Consortium White Paper, December 2009 (http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/2009-12-

22_PERM_White_Paper_FINAL.pdf). 

177
SD-22 – January 2016 

Pb-free solder in high-performance electronics. These risks include the spontaneous formation of tin 

whiskers from Pb-free tin-based finishes, reduced Pb-free solder joint integrity, reduced reliability by 

cross-contamination between the different alloys, and the potential component and board damage from 

the higher Pb-free processing temperatures. 

The first consideration in DMSMS management of Pb-free electronics is the risks of using them in the 

program. The program must therefore determine where Pb-free solder is acceptable and where it must 

not be used. For example, a program may determine that Pb-free components are viable options, but that 

the leads need to be applied with a SnPb finish prior to installation. Or, as another example, a program 

may determine that Pb-free components can be used for all non-mission-critical systems, but not for any 

mission-critical components, which should continue to use only leaded parts. 

Pb-free components affect DMSMS risk management in several ways: 









The RoHS directive has undoubtedly exacerbated the problem of obtaining traditional SnPb parts 

and components due to market changes. As the commercial market transitions to Pb-free 

construction and finishes on parts and components, the availability of the originally selected parts 

in SnPb becomes smaller. Also, new technology alternates are unlikely to have configurations 

with SnPb construction and finishes. 

The obsolescence status of an item may be in error. In some cases, component manufacturers 

that stop using SnPb finishes entirely have kept the same part number. Even if the component 

manufacturer elects to continue to produce a SnPb version of their item, there is no established 

protocol on whether to keep the original part number or to assign a new part number to the SnPb 

item. 

The technical viability of certain resolution options is affected. Alternative items that do not use 

SnPb solder are not necessarily usable. 

It may be necessary to take mitigation steps when buying items. For example, x-ray 

crystallography may be needed to determine whether or not SnPb solder was used and to 

prevent Pb-free components from entering the supply system. Another option could be the use of 

conformal coatings to discourage the growth of tin whiskers. 

The Government Electronics and Information Technology Association (GEIA) originally developed the 

following handbooks and standards to help manage the effects of Pb-free electronics. GEIA no longer 

exists. In 2013, SAE International assumed responsibility for these documents and is in the process of 

updating them. 















GEIA-HB-0005-1, “Program Management/Systems Engineering Guidelines for Managing the 

Transition to Lead-Free Electronics”

GEIA-HB-0005-2, “Technical Guidelines for Aerospace and High Performance Electronic 

Systems Containing Lead-free Solder and Finishes”

GEIA-HB-0005-3, “Rework/Repair Handbook to Address the Implications of Lead-Free 

Electronics and Mixed Assemblies in Aerospace and High Performance Electronic Systems”

GEIA-STD-0005-1A, “Performance Standard for Aerospace and High Performance Electronic 

Systems Containing Lead-Free Solder”

GEIA-STD-0005-2A, “Standard for Mitigating the Effects of Tin Whiskers in Aerospace and High 

Performance Electronic Systems”

GEIA-STD-0005-3A, “Performance Testing for Aerospace and High Performance Electronic 

Interconnects Containing Pb-Free Solder and Finishes”

GEIA-STD-0006, “Requirements for Using Solder Dip to Replace the Finish on Electronic Piece 

Parts.”

178
SD-22 – January 2016 

Appendix L. Complete Department of Commerce Cost Survey Results 

This appendix can be used, with caution, to modify the averages based on more specific circumstances. 

The appendix is a three-part table (Table 28) that contains the complete results from the Department of 

Commerce survey. The rows of the table show the above resolution options subdivided by environment 

(aviation, ground, shipboard, space, and undersea). The columns show the commodity type (electrical, 

mechanical, and electronics) subdivided by item type (assembly, component, raw material, and software). 

Entries in the table are average cost and sample size. Little confidence should be placed in entries with a 

low sample size. 

179
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 28. Number of DMSMS Resolutions Reported and Average Cost by Type, 

Commodity, and Environment (Part 1)

Electrical 

Assembly Component Electrical Total 

No. Average No. Average No. Average 

Approved Parts 86 $2,764 901 $199 987 $422 

Aviation 10 $1,500 191 $937 201 $965 

Ground 76 $2,930 0 ― 76 $2,930 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Space 0 ― 710 ― 710 ―

Life of Need Buy 3 $5,772 24 $12,467 27 $11,723 

Aviation 0 ― 1 $57,000 1 $57,000 

Ground 3 $5,772 3 $14,066 6 $9,919 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Space 0 ― 20 $10,000 20 $10,000 

Simple Substitute 0 ― 190 $3,315 190 $3,315 

Aviation 0 ― 89 $4,960 89 $4,960 

Ground 0 ― 4 $21,125 4 $21,125 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Space 0 ― 97 $1,072 97 $1,072 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Complex Substitute 1 $129,000 33 $15,565 34 $18,902 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Ground 1 $129,000 29 $14,441 30 $18,260 

Shipboard 0 ― 4 $23,713 4 $23,713 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Extension of Production or Support 27 $27,000 0 ― 27 $27,000 

Aviation 27 $27,000 0 ― 27 $27,000 

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Repair, Refurbishment or Reclamation 1 $7,500 0 ― 1 $7,500 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Ground 1 $7,500 0 ― 1 $7,500 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Development of a New Item or Source 11 $222,370 3 $1,179,368 14 $427,441 

180
SD-22 – January 2016 

Aviation 0 ― 3 $1,179,368 3 $1,179,368 

Ground 11 $222,370 0 ― 11 $222,370 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Redesign–NHA 1 $321,617 1 $20,000 2 $170,809 

Aviation 1 $321,617 1 $20,000 2 $170,809 

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Redesign Complex/System 

Replacement 

12 $21,115,333 0 ― 12 $21,115,333 

Aviation 12 $21,115,333 0 ― 12 $21,115,333 

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

All for Part Type 142 $1,811,776 1152 $4,496 1294 $202,822 

181
SD-22 – January 2016 

Table 28. Number of DMSMS Resolutions Reported and Average Cost by Type, 

Commodity, and Environment (Part 2) 

Electronics 

Assembly Component Raw Material Software Electrical Total 

No

. 

Average No. Average No

. 

Averag

e 

No

. 

Average No. Average 

Approved Parts 47 $2,335 269 $789 0 ― 0 ― 316 $1,019 

Aviation 31 $62 207 $298 0 ― 0 ― 238 $267 

Ground 1 $4,543 45 $749 0 ― 0 ― 46 $832 

Shipboard 15 $6,886 17 $6,686 0 ― 0 ― 32 $6,886 

Space 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Life of Need Buy 86 $3,586 547 $5,163 0 ― 0 ― 633 $4,949 

Aviation 44 $4,384 392 $5,292 0 ― 0 ― 436 $5,200 

Ground 10 ― 75 $1,778 0 ― 0 ― 85 $1,569 

Shipboard 32 $3,610 68 $1,805 0 ― 0 ― 100 $2,383 

Space 0 ― 12 $41,133 0 ― 0 ― 12 $41,133 

Simple Substitute 91 $3,339 114

1 

$15,232 1 $20,00

0 

0 ― 1233 $14,358 

Aviation 80 $2,412 989 $16,310 1 $20,00

0 

0 ― 1070 $15,274 

Ground 0 ― 105 $7,379 0 ― 0 ― 105 $7,379 

Shipboard 11 $10,080 47 $10,080 0 ― 0 ― 58 $10,080 

Space 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Complex Substitute 63 $20,107 268 $28,113 0 ― 0 ― 331 $26,590 

Aviation 40 $4,090 265 $28,346 0 ― 0 ― 305 $25,165 

Ground 4 $252,043 3 $7,600 0 ― 0 ― 7 $147,28

2 

Shipboard 19 $5,000 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 19 $5,000 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Extension of Production or 

Support 

9 $13,750 54 $11,149 5 $195,6

00

0 ― 68 $25,055 

Aviation 9 $13,750 51 $11,706 5 $195,6

00

0 ― 65 $26,135 

Ground 0 ― 3 $1,667 0 ― 0 ― 3 $1,667 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ―

Repair, Refurbishment or 

Reclamation 

12 $89,254 26 $58,442 0 ― 0 ― 38 $68,172 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Aviation 0 ― 4 $175,67

2 

0 ― 0 ― 4 $175,67

2 

Ground 1 $38,400 1 $741,00

0 

0 ― 0 ― 2 $389,70

0 

Shipboard 5 $126,650 21 $3,610 0 ― 0 ― 26 $27,272 

Undersea 6 $66,567 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 6 $66,567 

Development of a New Item or 

Source 

24 $1,459,6

51

79 $449,96

4 

0 ― 0 ― 103 $685,23

1 

Aviation 15 $1,142,9

49

71 $399,94

6 

0 ― 0 ― 86 $529,53

9 

Ground 7 $2,212,4

85

7 $985,86

1 

0 ― 0 ― 14 $1,599,1

73

Shipboard 2 $1,200,0

00

1 $250,00

0 

0 ― 0 ― 3 $883,33

3 

Redesign - NHA 56 $1,661,9

63

72 $654,58

8 

0 ― 4 $2,250,4

84

132 $1,130,3

20

Aviation 16 $1,613,1

26

25 $1,439,

633

0 ― 1 $1,354,2

00

42 $1,503,6

91

Ground 33 $1,979,6

28

5 $164,56

0 

0 ― 3 $2,549,2

45

41 $1,799,9

58

Shipboard 7 $276,023 42 $245,63

7 

0 ― 0 ― 49 $249,97

8 

Redesign Complex/System 

Replacement 

22 $5,748,0

30

9 $7,964,

419

0 ― 0 ― 31 $6,391,4

98

Aviation 11 $5,360,4

47

7 $9,879,

786

0 

―

0 ― 18 $7,117,9

68

Ground 3 $1,454,8

08

2 $1,260,

634

0 ― 0 ― 5 $1,377,1

38

Shipboard 8 $7,890,9

15

0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 8 $7,890,9

15

All for Part Type 41

0 

$628,638 246

5 

$74,819 6 $166,3

33

4 $2,250,4

84

2885 $156,73

2 

Table 28. Number of DMSMS Resolutions Reported and Average Cost by Type, 

Commodity, and Environment (Part 3) 

Mechanical All Res. Types/ 

Assembly Component Raw Material Mechanical Environment 

Total 

No

. 

Average No. Average No

.

Averag

e 

No

. 

Average No. Average 

Approved Parts 0 ― 228 $3,375 8 $9,295 23

6 

$3,576 1539 $1,028 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 3 $6,667 3 $6,667 442 $628 

Ground 0 ― 226 $3,344 1 $4,484 22

7 

$3,349 349 $2,926 

Shipboard 0 ― 2 $6,925 4 $12,46

8 

6 $10,620 38 $7,476 

Space 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 710 ―

Life of Need Buy 1 $11,500 5 $5,072 0 ― 6 $6,143 666 $5,234 

Aviation 1 $11,500 0 ― 0 ― 1 $11,500 438 $5,333 

Ground 0 ― 5 $5,072 0 ― 5 $5,072 96 $2,273 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 100 $2,383 

Space 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 32 $21,675 

Simple Substitute 3 $6,249 72 $6,109 2 $38,50

0 

77 $6,956 1500 $12,579 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 1 $2,000 1 $2,000 1160 $14,472 

Ground 3 $6,249 72 $6,109 0 ― 75 $6,115 184 $7,162 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 58 $10,080 

Space 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 97 $1,072 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 1 $75,00

0 

1 $75,000 1 $75,000 

Complex Substitute 5 $26,835 19 $20,080 21 $21,83

5 

45 $21,649 410 $25,410 

Aviation 0 ― 1 $26,000 4 $29,75

0 

5 $29,000 310 $25,227 

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 1 $32,60

4 

1 $32,604 38 $42,405 

Shipboard 5 $26,835 18 $19,751 15 $13,79

5 

38 $18,332 61 $14,532 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 1 $100,0

00

1 $100,000 1 $100,000 

Extension of Production or 

Support 

0 ― 2 $21,740 1 $20,00

0 

3 $21,160 98 $25,472 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 1 $20,00

0 

1 $20,000 93 $26,320 

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 3 $1,667 

Shipboard 0 ― 2 $21,740 0 ― 2 $21,740 2 $21,740 

Repair, Refurbishment or 

Reclamation 

1 $2,534 0 ― 0 ― 1 $2,534 40 $65,015 

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 4 $175,672 

Ground 1 $2,534 0 ― 0 ― 1 $2,534 4 $197,359 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 26 $27,272 

Undersea 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 6 $66,567 
SD-22 – January 2016 

Development of a New Item or 

Source 

3 $1,951,4

15

6 $132,50

0 

1 $25,00

0 

10 $667,425 127 $655,411 

Aviation 2 $2,750,0

0 

5 $115,00

0 

1 $25,00

0 

8 $762,500 97 $568,851 

Ground 1 $354,246 1 $220,00

0 

0 ― 2 $287,123 27 $941,064 

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 3 $883,333 

Redesign - NHA 2 $133,000 2 $502,18

0 

0 ― 4 $317,590 138 $1,092,8

56

Aviation 1 $140,000 1 $862,50

0 

0 ― 2 $501,250 46 $1,402,1

56

Ground 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 41 $1,799,9

58

Shipboard 1 $126,000 1 $141,86

0 

0 ― 2 $133,930 51 $245,427 

Redesign Complex/System 

Replacement 

1 $1,150,0

00

0 ― 0 ― 1 $1,150,0

00

44 $10,287,

964

Aviation 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 30 $12,716,

914

Ground 1 $1,50,00

0 

0 ― 0 ― 1 $1,150,0

00

6 $1,339,2

82

Shipboard 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 0 ― 8 $7,890,9

15

All for Part Type 16 $464,825 334 $10,357 33 $19,84

5 

38

3 

$30,160 4562 $159,179 
 

 

Appendix M. Abbreviations 

ACC Acquisition Community Connection 

AME Advanced Microcircuit Emulation (program) 

AoA analysis of alternatives 

ARCI Accountable/Responsible/Consulted/Informed 

AS Acquisition Strategy 

ASIC application-specific integrated circuit 

ASR Alternative Systems Review 

AvCIP Aviation Component Improvement Program 

BCA business case analysis 

BOM bill of materials 

CAGE 

CCB configuration control board 

CDR Critical Design Review 

CDRL Contract Data Requirements List 

CM configuration management 

CoP community of practice 

COTS commercial off-the-shelf 

DAC Defense Acquisition Challenge 

DAG Defense Acquisition Guidebook 

DAU Defense Acquisition University 

DAWIA Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act 

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

DID data item description 

DKSP DMSMS Knowledge Sharing Portal 

DLA Defense Logistics Agency 

DMP DMSMS management plan 

DMS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources 

DMSMS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages 

DMT DMSMS management team 

DoD Department of Defense 

DoDD DoD Directive 

DoDI DoD Instruction 

DoDM DoD Manual 

ECP engineering change proposal 

EOL end of life 

ESD electrostatic discharge 

F3 form/fit/function 

FCT Foreign Comparative Testing (program) 
 

 

FMS foreign military sales 

FSG Federal Supply Group 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GEIA Government Electronics and Information Technology Association 

GEM Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits (program) 

GIDEP Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 

GOTS government off-the-shelf 

HDL Hardware Description Language 

IBASF Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Fund 

ICA Industrial Capability Assessment 

IDEA Independent Distributors of Electronics Association 

IMP integrated master plan 

IMS integrated master schedule 

IOC Initial Operational Capability 

IPS Integrated Product Support 

IPT Integrated Product Team 

LA logistics assessment 

LCL life-cycle logistics 

LCSP Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan 

LECP logistics engineering change proposal 

LRFS Logistics Requirements and Funding Summary 

LRU line replaceable unit 

ManTech manufacturing technology (program) 

MDA Milestone Decision Authority 

MDD materiel development decision 

MilSpec military specification 

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command 

NHA next higher assembly 

NPV net present value 

NSN national stock number 

NTE not to exceed 

O&S operating and support 

OCM original component manufacturer 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OSCR Operating and Support Cost Reduction (program) 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

OWG Obsolescence Working Group 

Pb lead 

PBL performance-based logistics 
 

 

PDN product discontinuance notice 

PDR Preliminary Design Review 

PM program manager or program management 

PQM production, quality, and manufacturing 

PRR Production Readiness Review 

PSM product support manager 

PSP Product Support Plan 

QA quality assurance 

QML Qualified Manufacturers List 

QMS quality management system 

QPL Qualified Products List 

R&D research and development 

RFP request for proposals 

RoHS Restriction of Hazardous Substances 

ROI return on investment 

ROM rough order of magnitude 

SE systems engineering 

SFR System Functional Review 

SME subject matter expert 

Sn tin 

SOO statement of objectives 

SOW statement of work 

SPRDE systems planning, research, development, and engineering 

SRA shop replaceable assembly 

SRR Systems Requirements Review 

SRU shop replaceable unit 

STM science and technology management 

SYSPARS Systems Planning and Requirements Software 

T&E test and evaluation 

TDP technical data package 

TDS Technology Development Strategy 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VE value engineering 

VECP value engineering change proposal 

VEI value engineering incentive 

VHSIC very high speed integrated circuit 

WCF working capital fund 

WRA weapon replaceable assembly