Air force platform information technology pit cybersecurity guidebook

(March 2020) Version 2.0

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course

ACQ 203

DAU strives to make you, the defense acquisition workforce, better at what you do. Your work is important to the nation and your learning is important to us. We constantly work to make the course more effective for you. Please let your instructor know how we can improve this course or feel free to send me an email.

Thanks,

Matt Ambrose

ACQ 203 Course Manager

matt.ambrose@dau.mil

DAU Learning Resources Available at www.dau.mil

Interactive DAU Catalog http://icatalog.dau.mil/

Continuous Learning Center - http://www.dau.mil/clc/

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

Defense Acquisition Guidebook - https://dag.dau.mil/

Milestone Document Identification Tool - https://dap.dau.mil/mdid/

http://www.dau.mil/
http://icatalog.dau.mil/
http://www.dau.mil/clc/
https://dap.dau.mil/
https://dag.dau.mil/
https://dap.dau.mil/mdid/
Student Assessment

In the computer-based portion of the course (ACQ 202), you learned about the business, technical, and management processes involved in defense systems acquisition. In ACQ 203, you will work in an integrated product team environment to apply what you learned in the computer- based course to solve a variety of problems. Your performance in the classroom portion of the course will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. You must achieve at least 80% mastery of the ACQ 203 learning objectives in order to pass the entire course. Should you not achieve the required 80% overall, you will be required to repeat ACQ 203. ACQ 203 classroom performance assessment is based on these factors.

1. Assessments (70 Points)

Content and Analysis Questions. On the second and fourth day of class, you will answer some multiple choice questions based on the material covered in ACQ 203. All assessments are individual efforts. You are encouraged to refer to your notes, lesson summaries, and other written references. Each assessment contains 15 questions and is worth 35 points

2. Participation (30 Points)

Class participation will be assessed through instructor observation of teamwork, leadership and discussions. You are expected to be in class on time, actively participate in

group and class discussions, and rotate leadership responsibility among the members of your team (30 points). Behavior that could cause a student to lose participation points includes but is not limited to: tardiness, lack of attention, texting, sidebar conversations and disruption of class or team exercises and discussions.

3. Briefing

Each student is required to give a 5-10 minute briefing for their team. The briefing is a requirement for graduation but is not graded for points. This is an opportunity to develop and practice your briefing skills in a low threat environment.

4. Attendance

Attendance all class days is mandatory for graduation. Under special circumstances, such as a medical emergency, you may be excused from the course for up to two (2) hours with the instructor’s permission. (Early flights on Friday are not considered a valid reason to miss class.)

5

6

Exercise 1.1

IPT Leadership & Barriers - 9

Exercise 1.2

Ethics & Acquisition - 13

Exercise 1.3

Acquisition Strategy - 21

Firebird II DRAFT CDD – 43

Exercise 1.4

Materiel Solution Analysis - 51

Exercise 2.1

Source Selection Planning - 61

Exercise 2.2

Systems Engineering - 77

Exercise 2.3

Test Planning - 89

Exercise 2.4

Technical Performance Measures – 97

Exercise 2.5

Contractor Planning, Scheduling and

Resourcing - 101

Exercise 3.1

Source Selection Process - 109

Exercise 3.2

Contractor Performance Analysis - 115

Exercise 3.3

Software & Interoperability - 125

Exercise 3.4

Reliability Issue - 133

Exercise 3.5

Contract Change - 139

Exercise 4.1

Supportability Issue - 149

CBT Summaries - 157

(See the Index on the Next Page)

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS

7

ACQ 202 Summaries Index

Lesson Title Page

1.1 Considering the Costs 158

1.2 Selecting the Best Approach 162

2.1 Integrated Product and Process 164 Development (IPPD)

2.2 Developing the Acquisition 167 Approach

2.3 Developing the Life Cycle 172 Sustainment Plan

2.4 Risk Management 176

2.5 Developing the TEMP 181

2.6 ESOH Issues 186

2.7 Programming Funds 188

2.8 RFP Preparations (Part I) 192

2.9 RFP Preparations (Part II) 196

3.1 Source Selection 201

3.2 Technical Risk Management 207

3.3 Design for Supportability/ 210 Trade-Off Analysis

3.4 Software Design 214

3.5 Commercial & NDI 216

3.6 Role of Manufacturing 219

Lesson Title Page

3.7 Earned Value Management 221

3.8 Budgeting Process 225

4.1 Design Changes 227

4.2 Software Problems 231

4.3 APB Breaches 235

4.4 Reprogramming Funds 236

4.5 Reviews, Simulations & Tests 238

4.6 Contractor Performance 241 Measurement

4.7 Integrated Baseline Review 246

4.8 Budget Execution 248

4.9 Operational & Live Fire Tests 250

5.1 Best Manufacturing Practices 252

5.2 Unauthorized Commitments 254

5.3 Production and Follow-On 256 Support

5.4 Contract Modification 258

6.1 Contract Dispute 261

6.2 Life Cycle Product Support 263

6.3 Leadership and Ethics 266

8

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

LESSON ASSIGNMENT SHEET

Lesson Number Exercise 1.1 ______________________________________________________

Lesson Title Integrated Product Team (IPT) Leadership & Barriers ______________________________________________________

Lesson Time 1 hour ______________________________________________________

Terminal and Enabling Learning Objectives

TLO Determine how IPT leadership concepts can be used to overcome barriers to effective teamwork, based on real world experience.

ELO Relate key tenets of IPPD to planning and executing an acquisition program. ELO Identify the aids and barriers to successful IPT implementation. ELO Identify the Supervisory, Participative and Team leadership styles.

ELO Describe how different leadership styles impact the effectiveness of an IPT. ELO Identify the behaviors and characteristics of effective teams.

______________________________________________________

Assignments Review the following ACQ 202 CBT Lesson Summaries: • Lesson 2.1, Integrated Product and Process Development • Lesson 6.3, Leadership and Ethics

______________________________________________________

Estimated Student Preparation Time N/A

______________________________________________________

Assessment Class participation; oral presentation ______________________________________________________

Related Lessons CBT Lesson 2.1, Integrated Product and Process Development CBT Lesson 6.3, Leadership and Ethics

______________________________________________________

9

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Self Study References

• DoD Guide to Integrated Product and Process Development, (Version 1.0), February 5, 1996.

• Rules of the Road: A Guide for Leading Successful Integrated Product Teams, Oct 1999. Available at http://www.defenselink.mil/nii/org/cio/pa/rulesoct1999.doc

• DoD Integrated Product and Process Development Handbook, August 1998.

Insert Slides

10

Supervisory Participative Team

From Leading Teams, Mastering the New Role, by Zenger, Musselwhite, Hurson and Perrin

Leadership Styles

Direct people Involve people Build trust and inspire teamwork

Explain decisions Get input for decisions Facilitate and support team decisions

Train individuals Develop individual performance Expand team capabilities

Manage one-on-one Coordinate group effort Create a team identity

Contain conflict Resolve conflict Make the most of team differences

React to change Implement change Foresee and influence change

The Standards Clarity

Accuracy Relevance

Logic Breadth

Precision Significance Completeness

Fairness Depth

The Elements Purpose Questions

Points of View Information

Inferences Concepts

Implications Assumptions

The Intellectual Traits Intellectual Humility Intellectual Autonomy Intellectual Integrity Intellectual Courage

Intellectual Perseverance Confidence in Reason Intellectual Empathy

Fairmindedness

Must be applied

to

As we learn to develop

Dr. Paul and Dr. Elder’s model shows critical

thinkers routinely apply standards to

the elements of reasoning to

develop intellectual traits

Critical Thinking— The art of analyzing

and evaluating thinking with a view

to improving it.— Paul and Elder

Effective Team Leaders Enable & Encourage Critical Thinking

The IPPD Process Provides Good Conditions for Critical Thinking ‐ ACQ 203 Provides Multiple

Opportunities to Apply Critical Thinking

11

A general agreement by all team members that they can live with and be committed to a particular course of action.

Consensus

When the output of a team is greater than the sum of the contributions of its individual members.

Synergy

12

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

LESSON ASSIGNMENT SHEET

Lesson Number Exercise 1.2 ______________________________________________________

Lesson Title Ethics and Acquisition ______________________________________________________

Lesson Time 1 hour

_____________________________________________________

Terminal and Enabling Learning Objectives

TLO Resolve an acquisition-related dilemma by prioritizing ethical values and considering how choices impact the welfare of others.

ELO Identify the characteristics of a “successful” defense acquisition program from a variety of perspectives.

ELO Identify core ethical values critical to decision making in the acquisition environment. ELO Identify the steps of the Principled Decision Making Model

ELO Resolve an ethical dilemma by applying the steps of the Principled Decision Making Model.

______________________________________________________

Assignments Review the following ACQ 202 CBT Lesson Summary: • Lesson 6.3, Leadership and Ethics

______________________________________________________

Estimated Student Preparation Time N/A

______________________________________________________

Assessment Class participation ______________________________________________________

Related Lessons CBT Lesson 6.3. Leadership and Ethics ______________________________________________________

Self Study References N/A

______________________________________________

13

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

14

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Exercise 1.2 Successful Acquisition Program What is a successful defense acquisition program? It depends upon your point of view: _______________

A successful program delivers a system that meets the user’s technical performance requirements on time and within budget.

_______________

A successful program is profitable; it provides a positive cash flow and return on investment.

_______________

A successful program provides capability in a system that is available, effective, and easy to operate in wartime and peacetime.

_______________

A successful program balances social, environmental and defense needs. It provides a fair distribution of defense dollars by state.

Whose perspectives are indicated above? Fill in the blanks.

15

• Consider the welfare of all stakeholders.

• Give precedence to ethical values over non-ethical values.

• Prioritize based on what will bring the most good and least harm to others.

Principled Decision Making Model

• Trustworthiness

• Respect

• Responsibility

• Justice/Fairness

• Caring

• Civic Virtue/Citizenship

Ethical Values

16

• Profit Motive

• Career Progression

• Power

• Position

Non-Ethical Values

17

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

18

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Case 1.2, An Ethics Dilemma

Read the following case and discuss the three questions with your team: Brigadier General Burt Goodguy is the Program Executive Officer (PEO) for five military programs. Tomorrow he is to testify before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) regarding a very sophisticated and expensive weapons system considered a very high priority by his service secretary. The prime contractor is Mogul Systems, located in the district of Rep. Allen, chairman of the HASC. The system is in trouble because Congress is desperately looking to make large cuts in the defense budget, and the program is almost one year behind schedule. In addition, several significant technical problems were uncovered in the most recent tests. Several members of Congress have publicly advocated canceling the system before it goes into full production. Mogul insists it has solved the problems and is confident that the system will pass its next test with flying colors. Mogul asserts it can go into full production within nine months. The Secretary of Defense has thus far been strongly supportive of the system in his public statements, but some think he is privately wavering for political reasons. Col. Wantit, Program Manager for the system, briefs BGen. Goodguy and tells him that he is not sure that Mogul has solved the problems yet. BGen. Goodguy grimaces at this news and says sarcastically, “Can’t you bring me good news? You aren’t helping the cause, you know.” Col. Wantit recently heard disturbing rumors, which he has not yet tried to verify, that the chief scientist on the program is seriously ill (possibly with cancer) and that several top engineers are about to quit. If either of the rumors is true, the likelihood that Mogul will solve its problems before the next test is much less likely. However, he still believes the problems are temporary. Since the information is shaky and so potentially volatile, Col. Wantit decides not to tell BGen. Goodguy about the rumors for fear that he might have to mention it to Congress, and some politicians and the press would blow the program.

1. Who are the stakeholders in his decision?

2. What ethical values are involved in Col. Wantit’s decision to withhold his information about the rumors?

3. What would you have done in his place?

____________________________________________ ©1997 Josephson Institute of Ethics – Reprinted with permission

19

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Case 1.2, An Ethics Dilemma (continued)

An hour after briefing BGen. Goodguy, Col. Wantit receives a call from Barbara Leake, a top manager at Mogul who has known Col. Wantit for 10 years.

Leake: George, it’s Barbara Leake. How are things going for you?

Wantit: Things are pretty hectic around here, as usual. How about you?

Leake: “Well, this isn’t for publication, but I wanted you to know I’m going to be leaving Mogul. If you know of any appropriate openings, let me know.”

Wantit: “I’ve got to know more. Is the program in any way endangered? Are there problems I should know about?”

Leake: “Probably, but you simply can’t use this yet: it will be traced to me. Even if you sniff around they will suspect me, and it would kill any chance I have to land another job. I’ve already told you too much, and it really isn’t a big thing. Really. I’ll tell you the whole story if you hold it confidential for a week or so.”

Wantit: “I can’t promise that. But I need to know, and you need to tell me. I’ll protect you as a source as best I can.”

Leake: “I’m sorry, I just can’t risk it, but you’ll know whatever you need to know in a few days, I imagine. It’s just not that serious. Look, I’ve got to go to a meeting now; goodbye…”

1. Did Col. Wantit handle this properly?

2. Who are the major stakeholders?

3. What ethical values are involved?

4. What would you have done in Col. Wantit’s position?

5. What, if anything, should Col. Wantit tell BGen. Goodguy?

6. Should BGen. Goodguy want to know about this and similar information? Would you?

7. If BGen. Goodguy wanted his people to tell them everything that might be relevant to a program, what could he do to increase the likelihood?

____________________________________________ ©1997 Josephson Institute of Ethics – Reprinted with permission

20

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

LESSON ASSIGNMENT SHEET

Lesson Number Exercise 1.3 ______________________________________________________

Lesson Title Acquisition Strategy Development ______________________________________________________

Lesson Time 8.5 hours ______________________________________________________

Terminal and Enabling Learning Objectives

TLO Prepare an acquisition strategy program structure chart showing appropriate interrelationship(s) of the various business and technical functions involved in planning and executing the program:

ELO Given an acquisition program scenario with information on technology maturity, funding and JCIDS documentation, identify the correct starting point for the program in the acquisition lifecycle

ELO Identify the correct type of appropriated funds needed by phase and work effort

ELO Given an acquisition program structure chart identify the correct sequence and timing of technical reviews by phase and work effort

ELO Given an acquisition program structure chart identify the correct sequence and timing of developmental and operational test events by phase and work effort

ELO Given an acquisition program structure chart identify the correct sequence and timing of lifecycle logistics planning and execution efforts by phase and work effort

ELO Given an acquisition program structure chart, identify the appropriate contract types by phase and work effort

ELO Given an acquisition program structure chart, identify the timing of major hardware deliverables by phase and work effort

ELO Relate the capability documents (ICD,CDD) to the correct phases of the acquisition system ELO Identify the evolutionary acquisition strategy approach ELO Identify the single step acquisition strategy approach

TLO Modify, present, and defend an acquisition strategy to accommodate a change in program funding levels ELO Identify the proper response to a program funding cut ELO Given a program funding cut, identify the potential impacts on industry.

______________________________________________________

21

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Assignments  Scan Pages 2-17 of the DoDI 5000.02T

 Read Pages 18-32 DoDI 5000.02T  Review the following ACQ 202 CBT Lesson Summary:

- Lesson 2.2, Developing the Acquisition Strategy ______________________________________________________

Estimated Student Preparation Time 60 minutes

______________________________________________________

Assessment Class participation; oral presentation ______________________________________________________

Related Lessons CBT Lesson 2.2, Developing the Acquisition Strategy Classroom Exercise 1.4, Materiel Solution Analysis

______________________________________________________

Self Study References

 DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, 12 May 2003  DoDI 5000.02T, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chaps 2 & 4

______________________________________________

22

DoDD 5000.01: The Defense Acquisition System DoDI 5000.02: Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework

1. Simplify Acquisition Policy 2. Tailor Acquisition Approaches 3. Empower Program Managers

4. Data Driven Analysis 5. Active Risk Management 6. Emphasize Sustainment

< 5 years

< 1 year

Cy be

rs ec ur ity

Path Selection

Defense Business Systems

Middle Tier of

Acquisition DoDI 5000.80

Acquisition of Services

Major Capability Acquisition

Urgent Capability Acquisition

DoDI 5000.81

OP ER

AT IO NS

A ND

SU

ST AI NM

EN T

Business Capability Acquisition Cycle

< 2 years

Software Acquisition (In Process)

Rapid Prototyping

Capability Need

Identification Solution Analysis

Functional Requirements and Acquisition Planning

Acquisition Testing and Deployment

Capability Support

Pl an

ni ng

Ph as e I1 I2…

MVP MVCR Rn

O D

Rapid Fielding

10

Material Solution Analysis

Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction

Engineering and Manufacturing Development

Production and Deployment

MDD MS A MS B MS C IOC FOC

ATP ATP ATP ATP

In In In Execution Phase

O D

< 5 years

D D

Legend: ATP: Authority to Proceed DD: Disposition Decision

FOC: Full Operational Capability I: Iteration

IOC: Initial Operational Capability MDD: Material Development Decision

MS: Milestone MVP: Minimum Viable Product

MVCR: Minimum Viable Capability Release OD: Outcome Determination

R: Release

1 Form the Team

2 Review Current Strategy

3 Perform Market Research

4 Define Require‐ ments

5 Develop

Acquisition Strategy

6 Execute Strategy

7 Manage

Performance

PLAN DEVELOP EXECUTE

Middle Tier

Adaptive Acquisition Framework

Tenets of the Defense Acquisition System

Revised DoDI 5000.02 will include an Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF) with 6 tailorable acquisition pathways

5000.02T

23

Urgent Operational Needs DoDI 5000.81

To field capabilities to fulfill urgent

existing and/or emerging operational

needs or quick reactions in less than 2 years. • Identified and approved for resolution by designated authorities.

• Estimated cost below MDAP thresholds

• Processes, reviews, and documents are aggressively streamlined

• Planning in a few weeks; development and production in months.

Transition documentation complete within 2 Years

Middle Tier of Acquisition

5

Innovative technologies, Fieldable prototypes, New Capabilities

* LCSP at program start is required for Major Systems in the Rapid Fielding Pathway only. PMs, with the support of the product support managers, will develop and implement sustainment programs addressing each of the integrated product support elements to deliver affordable readiness.

Transition to Rapid Fielding or New or Existing Program.

ADM Program Start

Develop/ Approve

Requirement

Develop Acquisition Strategy

Full Funding

Rapid Prototyping – 2 to 5 Years to Completion

ADM Outcome Determination (OD) within 60 Days

Fieldable Prototypes

Develop Cost

Estimate & LCSP*

CAE Assigns PM & PSM

Transition to Operations and Sustainment.

Rapid Fielding ‐ 2 to 5 Years to Completion

ADM Outcome Determination (OD)within 60 Days

Fielding Complete

Proven technologies, Minimal development New Production

Start Production within 6 Months

MTA Planning

MTA Execution

‐MTA programs are not subject to JCIDS or major capability acquisition requirements. PMs will “tailor‐ in” reviews, assessments, and relevant documentation that results in an acquisition strategy customized to the unique characteristics and risks of their program.

‐MTA programs will include a process for demonstrating and evaluating performance to include cybersecurity and interoperability as applicable.

24

Capabilities- Based

Assessment

The Defense Acquisition Management System Relationship to JCIDS

Acquisition ProcessJCIDS

Strategic Guidance

Joint Concepts

Technology Opportunities & Resources Technology Opportunities & Resources

User NeedsUser Needs

OSD FCB

A CB Technology Maturation & RR

Production & Deployment

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD Draft CDD

MDD

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

CDD

O&SICD

PPBE

DASJCIDS

“If the Materiel Development Decision is approved, the MDA will designate the lead DoD Component; determine the acquisition phase of entry; and identify the initial review milestone.”

JCS Update if Needed

The Defense Acquisition Management System

 The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system

 Entrance Criteria met before entering phase  Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability

A CB

LRIPTechnology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Production & Deployment

DRFPRD

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD-V

CDD ICD Draft

CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

Development Decision

IOC

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

DisposalFOC

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

PDR CDR

Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

RELATIONSHIP TO JCIDS

DRAFT CDD

 PDR: Preliminary Design Review  CDR: Critical Design Review  CDD-V: CDD Validation

 LRIP: Low Rate Initial Production  FRP: Full Rate Production  DRFPRD: Development Request For

Proposals Release Decision

 IOC: Initial Operational Capability  FOC: Full Operational Capability

Capability Development Document (CDD)

CDD

Update if Needed

25

Achieving Full Capability

Two strategy approaches to full capability: evolutionary and single-step.  Particular approach chosen depends on:

o Availability of time-phased capabilities in the CDD o Technology maturity o Cost/benefit of incremental fielding vs. single step o Cost of fielding multiple configurations

• Retrofit decisions & cost • Training • Supportability

 Acquisition strategy shall address chosen approach

 Evolutionary acquisition is the preferred strategy for rapid acquisition of mature technology

PPBE Phases  Planning

o Review threat / assess capabilities o Develop guidance o Defense Planning Guidance (DPG)

 Programming o Turn guidance into achievable and affordable packages / programs o Program Objective Memorandum (POM) o Future Years Defense Program(FYDP)

 Budgeting o Budget Estimate Submission (BES) o Scrub budget year o First year of FYDP

 Execution o Measure performance

against plan o Assess effectiveness

of resource allocations

PPBE

DAMSJCIDS

The Program Team

Program Management

Test and Evaluation

Logistics

Contracting

Systems Engineering

Financial Management

26

“Colors” of Money

Appropriation Category Life

Operation & Maintenance (O&M) 1 year

MILPERS 1 year

RDT&E 2 years

Procurement (excluding SCN) 3 years

SCN (Shipbuilding & Conversion, Navy) 5 years

MILCON 5 years

PPBE

DAMSJCIDS

* All appropriation categories are good for period of obligation plus five years for paying bills

The Program Team

The Program Team

Program Management

Test and Evaluation

Logistics

Contracting

Systems Engineering

Financial Management

27

Risk and Contract Types

FFPCPFF

Greatest Cost Risk to the Contractor Greatest Cost Risk to the Government

FPAFFPI (F)CPAFCPIF

Technical requirements defined; fair & reasonable prices determinable

Vague technical requirements; labor and material costs uncertain

Technical Risk

Contractor Delivers “Best Effort” Contractor Delivers Acceptable Product

“Typical” Contract Types by Phase

PPBE

DASJCIDS

CPFF

CPFF= Cost Plus Fixed Fee CPAF= Cost Plus Award Fee

CPFF, CPIF, CPAF, FPIF, FPAF

CPIF= Cost Plus Incentive Fee FPIF= Fixed Price Incentive Firm

FFP, FPIF FP (EPA)

FFP = Firm Fixed Price FP (EPA) = Fixed Price Economic Price Adjustment

FPIF FFP

A CB

LRIPTechnology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Production & Deployment

DRFPRD

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD-V

CDD ICD DraftCDD

Draft CDD Draft CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

Development Decision

IOC

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

DisposalFOC

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

PDR CDR CDD

FFP

Update if Needed

28

The Program Team

The Program Team

Program Management

Test and Evaluation

Logistics

Contracting

Systems Engineering

Financial Management

Technical

 Systems Engineering─the overarching process that a program team applies to transition from a stated capability to an operationally effective and suitable system

 Test and Evaluation─process by which a system or components are exercised and results analyzed to provide performance-related information

o Program/contractor systems engineers o Developmental and Operational test communities

 Supportability─includes design, technical support data, and maintenance procedures to facilitate detection, isolation, and timely repair and/or replacement of system anomalies o Program/contractor systems engineers o Program/contractor logistic engineers

29

Technical Reviews and Testing

 Alternative Systems Review (ASR)  Systems Requirements Review (SRR)  System Functional Review (SFR)  Preliminary Design Review (PDR)  Critical Design Review (CDR)  Test Readiness Review (TRR)  System Verification Review (SVR)  Functional Configuration Audit (FCA)

 Production Readiness Review (PRR)  Operational Test Readiness Review

(OTRR)  Physical Configuration Audit (PCA)  Technology Readiness Assessment

(TRA)  In-Service Review (ISR)  Developmental Testing (DT)

 Early Operational Assessment (EOA)  Operational Assessment (OA)  Initial Operational Test & Evaluation

(IOT&E)  Follow on Operational Test and

Evaluation (FOT&E)

ASRASR SRRSRR SFRSFR PDRPDR CDRCDR SVRSVR PCAPCA ISRISR FCAFCA

PRRPRR TRATRATRATRATRATRAS

EP TE

M P

DT&E

OA IOT&EIOT&E FOT&EEOAEOA TRRTRR OTRROTRR

A CB

LRIPTechnology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Production & Deployment

DRFPRD

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD-V

CDDICD Draft CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

Development Decision

IOC

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

Disposal

FOC

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

CDD

PRRPRR

Update if Needed

Logistics/Sustainment

 Technical and management activities conducted to ensure supportability implications are considered early and throughout the acquisition process to minimize support costs and to provide the user with the resources to sustain the system in the field. o Evaluate product support capabilities o Develop, demonstrate, and implement product support strategy

• Logistics footprint control • Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability • Training, spares, technical manuals, transportation • Performance Based Logistics (PBL) agreements

 Major Defense Acquisition Programs are now required by law to have a Product Support Manager.

30

Logistics/Sustainment Planning

Performance Based Logistics (PBL), is the required DoD approach for product support. It allows us to manage program and system outcomes such as materiel availability and reliability as opposed to actions and transactions such as repairs and parts.

“a strategy for weapon system product support that employs the purchase of support as an integrated performance package designed to optimize system readiness. It meets performance goals for a weapon system through a support structure based on performance agreements with clear lines of authority and responsibility.”

Initiate LCSP

LCSP Update

Performance Based Logistics Implementation

Demonstrate Product Support

Capability

A CB

LRIPTechnology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Production & Deployment

DRFPRD

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD-V

CDD ICD DraftCDD

Draft CDD Draft CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

Development Decision

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

Disposal FOC

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

IOC

CDD

LCSP Update & ILA

LCSP Update & ILA

LCSP Update & ILA

Update if Needed

Cybersecurity & the Acquisition Lifecycle Integration Tool (CALIT) CALIT Ver 3.1 Sep 2018

31

Materiel Solution Analysis

 ENTER: Approved ICD, study guidance for conducting the AoA and an approved AoA plan. AoA study guidance for MDAPs and AoA plan approval will be provided by CAPE.

 ACTIVITIES: Establish PM & PMO, Conduct AoA, user writes draft CDD, develop initial:

• Acquisition Strategy • Test & Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) • Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) • Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) • Cyber Security Strategy • Other Program Documentation as Required

 GUIDED BY: ICD and AoA Plan  EXIT: Completed the necessary analysis and activities to support a

decision to proceed to the next decision point and desired phase in the acquisition process.

PURPOSE: to conduct the analysis and

other activities needed to choose the

concept for the product that

will be acquired

A

Materiel Solution Analysis

ICD DraftCDD

Materiel Development

Decision

Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction

 ENTER: MDA approved materiel solution and Acquisition Strategy, initial major program documentation and funding in the FYDP

 ACTIVITIES: Competitive prototyping of critical subsystems, SE Trade- off analysis, develop contracting strategy, conduct CDD Validation, conduct Preliminary Design Review (PDR), conduct Development RFP Release Decision, begin source selection for EMD

 GUIDED BY: Acquisition Strategy & Draft CDD/Approved CDD, SEP & TEMP

 EXIT: Demonstration that technology, engineering, integration, manufacturing, sustainment, and cost risks risk have been adequately mitigated to support a commitment to design for production, Validated capability requirements, full funding in the FYDP, and compliance with affordability goals for production and sustainment

PURPOSE: to reduce

technology, engineering,

integration, and life cycle cost risk to the point that a decision to

contract for EMD can be made

with confidence in successful program

execution for development, production, and sustainment

A B Technology

Maturation & Risk

Reduction

DRFPRD

CDD-V

CDDDraft CDD

Final RFP

PDR

Final RFP

32

Engineering and Manufacturing Development

 ENTER: Adequate Risk Reduction; Approved Requirements; Full Funding in FYDP  ACTIVITIES: Complete detailed design, system-level CDR, integrated testing,

establish product baseline, demonstrate manufacturing processes and supportability  GUIDED BY: CDD, Acquisition Strategy, SEP & TEMP  EXIT:

(1) the design is stable; (2) the system meets validated capability requirements demonstrated by developmental and initial operational testing as required in the TEMP; (3) manufacturing processes have been effectively demonstrated and are under control; (4) industrial production capabilities are reasonably available; and (5) the system has met or exceeds all directed EMD Phase exit criteria and Milestone C entrance criteria

PURPOSE: to develop, build, and test a product

to verify that all operational and

derived requirements have been met and to support production

or deployment decisions

B

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

CDR

C

PDR?

CDD

Update if Needed

Production and Deployment

 ENTER: Acceptable performance in DT & OA; mature software; no significant manufacturing risks; approved CDD; acceptable interoperability and operational supportability; demonstration of affordability; fully funded

 ACTIVITIES: Low Rate Initial Production, IOT&E, LFT&E (If Required) and interoperability testing of production-representative articles; Full-Rate Production Decision; fielding and support of fielded systems; IOC/FOC

 GUIDED BY: CDD, TEMP, SEP, LCSP

 EXIT: Full operational capability; deployment complete

PURPOSE: to produce and

deliver requirements-

compliant products to receiving military

organizations

LRIP

Production & Deployment

FRP

Decision FOC

IOC C

Full Rate Production

CDD

Update if Needed

33

Operations and Support

 ENTER: Approved CDD; approved LCSP; successful FRP Decision

 ACTIVITIES: LCSP implementation; Performance-Based Life-Cycle Product Support (PBL) implementation, and management; initiate system modifications as necessary; continuing reviews of sustainment strategies, Demilitarize and dispose of systems IAW legal and regulatory requirements, particularly environmental considerations and explosives safety

• GUIDED BY: CDD/Acquisition Strategy/LCSP

PURPOSE: Execute a support

program that meets materiel readiness and operational

support performance

requirements, and sustains the system in the most cost-

effective manner over its total life cycle.

Operations & Support

Sustainment

Disposal FOC

The Defense Acquisition Management System

 The Materiel Development Decision precedes entry into any phase of the acquisition management system

 Entrance Criteria met before entering phase  Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step to Full Capability

A CB

LRIPTechnology Maturation &

Risk Reduction

Production & Deployment

DRFPRD

Materiel Solution Analysis

CDD-V

CDD ICD Draft

CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

Development Decision

IOC

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

DisposalFOC

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

PDR CDR

Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

RELATIONSHIP TO JCIDS

DRAFT CDD

 PDR: Preliminary Design Review  CDR: Critical Design Review  CDD-V: CDD Validation

 LRIP: Low Rate Initial Production  FRP: Full Rate Production  DRFPRD: Development Request For

Proposals Release Decision

 IOC: Initial Operational Capability  FOC: Full Operational Capability

Capability Development Document (CDD)

CDD

Update if Needed

34

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Warm Up Exercise For each of the following situations, determine where on the acquisition life cycle model would recommend the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) authorize entry into the defense acquisition management framework? 1. An Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) was validated and approved for a joint war fighting capability to intercept and attack ballistic missile reentry vehicles in mid-course, prior to reentering the earth's atmosphere. The ICD identified several possible materiel approaches to provide the required capability including an air launched missile interceptor. Market research determined that the technology is feasible, but the various possibilities need to be analyzed to determine the best missile and launch platforms before the appropriate technology can be demonstrated. The MDA also wants to designate a lead DoD Component for this joint war fighting system, needs a strategy for rapid fielding using evolutionary acquisition, and wants to encourage maximum innovation and competition for the best system(s) from private industry. CAPE has issued AoA study guidance and approved an AoA study plan. 2. Senior leaders in the U.S. Army are anticipating protracted times of constrained budgets and limited opportunities to train. Army leaders are looking for technology solutions that will greatly improve accuracy when firing side arms with limited training. There is a recently approved CDD leveraging an already existing ICD for Soldier small-arms capability needs. The CDD requires a new Soldier side-arm solution that includes an integrated targeting LASER with significantly improved first shot accuracy. Multiple commercial vendors offer pistols with integrated targeting LASERs; three vendors in particular have existing contracts and running productions lines supplying the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Forces. Field evaluations from the Marines and SOF combat units indicate effectiveness and suitability of the firearms, particularly accuracy, which meets the CDD thresholds. The program has full procurement funding. 3. An ICD has been validated and approved for a capability to intercept and attack ballistic missile reentry vehicles in mid-course, prior to reentering the earth's atmosphere. Air Force will be lead service to develop this capability. An analysis of alternatives and an acquisition strategy have been completed and the Air Force has selected as the best system a laboratory proposal for a laser mounted on an existing airplane. Funding for the effort was included in the latest update to the FYDP. The concept is promising, however, the technology has not been matured and there are significant performance risks. The user has provided a draft CDD based on the ICD. 4. A Navy Lab has developed a protective eye shield/mask that will guard the wearer's eyes against the full spectrum of current lasers directed from any angle. The Navy Lab has coordinated with the users, who have produced an ICD and CDD that have both been validated and approved by the Chief of Naval Operations. The Navy Acquisition Executive agreed to fully support this initiative in the upcoming budget review, and has identified specific offsets in other programs to provide the funding. The technology appears to be mature and technical risks are assessed as low. However, the system has yet to be tested outside of the lab. It also has not been integrated with other components of a helmet system.

35

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

Capstone Exercise (to be completed and briefed Friday) –

Background Firebird II unmanned air vehicles (UAV’s) have reached FOC, and have been successfully carrying out military operations around the world. The survivability enhancements provided in Firebird II have reduced the loss rate from heat-seeking shoulder-launched missiles to less than 10% per engagement. However, because of deeper defense budget cuts and further consolidation, the need has emerged for Firebird to provide more persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capability. As a result, the Services want to increase the Firebird loiter time from 3 hrs to 4.5/6.0 hrs (threshold/objective). This increase in loiter time is to be provided while achieving the original Firebird II requirement for range of 250 KM/300 KM (threshold/objective). The next increment, dubbed “Firebird III”, is planned to address the capability needs and include engineering changes to address reliability degraders. The MDA has approved the Materiel Development Decision for Firebird III and an AoA has been completed. The following new requirements have been included in the draft CDD for Firebird III:

DRAFT REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREBIRD III 1. Firebird III will have a loiter capability of 4.5/6.0 hrs (threshold/objective). This is a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). 2. Firebird III will have a range of 250/300 KM (threshold/objective). This is a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). 3. Firebird III will provide Link 17 capability for real-time transfer of compressed digital video intelligence to the DoD Information Network (DoDIN).

All other requirements from the Firebird II CDD remain unchanged. You can assume that the program will be fully funded in the FYDP in time for the next milestone and the CDD will be approved in time for a DRFPRD. Situation Ms. Connie Smith, former contracting officer for the Firebird program, has been promoted and is the newly appointed interim Program Manager for Firebird III. She has asked your team to develop a program structure chart for the Acquisition Strategy. She has provided the following information:

- Firebird III will be a joint, ACAT II program with the Army as the lead service. - Initial Operational Capability (IOC) objective date is 42 months from program

initiation. IOC threshold date is 48 months from program initiation (Milestone B).

36

Intermediate Systems Acquisition Course March 2020

The user’s requirement for IOC is 2 operational Firebird III systems (2 ground stations and 8 UAVs).

- Retrofit of 400 Firebird air vehicles is required to meet FOC for all the military services combined.

Responses to an RFI have provided the Program Manager with several possible acquisition strategy alternatives. She wants to explore three different acquisition strategy approaches: Approach 1. Two contractors responding to the Request for Information have indicated that they have integrated a more fuel efficient, lightweight engine into a commercial variant of the Firebird. The contractors have already successfully flown these prototype Firebird air vehicles using this engine which indicates the potential to meet the increased loiter time and range requirements. However, the prototypes must be further refined and developed before production representative units suitable for Operational Testing can be fully designed, integrated, and built. Approach 2. Recent advances in lightweight material technology research look promising. MIT has been working on a new material, called Litex that may be suitable for aircraft skins due to its combination of extreme light weight and strength. The Air Force Research Laboratory has published a white paper describing potential future applications of this technology in UAVs. According to the paper, the Firebird airframe could be retrofitted with Litex to meet the increased loiter time and range requirements if this technology pans out. However, it also states that Litex is not yet mature enough to use in aircraft. Six months of development and testing is necessary to determine durability and temperature limits before the material is ready for integration into aircraft and actually flown at representative altitudes and airborne profiles. Several U.S. contractors have the necessary technical and manufacturing capabilities to apply this technology to the Firebird.