DoD 5000.85 – Guidance

DoD Instruction 5000.85 Major Capability Acquisition

Originating Component:      Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

Effective:                               August 6, 2020

Releasability:                        Cleared for public release. Available on the Directives Division Website at https://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/.

Incorporates and Cancels:  Sections 1, 4, and 6, and Enclosures 1, 2, 6, and 8 of DoDI 5000.02T,

“Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” January 7, 2015, as amended

Approved by:                        Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Sustainment

Purpose: In accordance with DoD Directive (DoDD) 5135.02, this issuance establishes policy and prescribes procedures that guide the acquisition of major capability acquisition programs, including major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs); other programs categorized as acquisition category (ACAT) I; major systems, usually categorized as ACAT II; automated information systems (AIS) (not managed by other acquisition pathways); and other capabilities developed via the major capability acquisition pathway. Wholly and majority National Intelligence Program-funded acquisition programs will be executed in accordance with Intelligence Community policy.

Table of Contents

Section 1: General Issuance Information…………………………………………………………………….. 4

  1. Applicability………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
    1. Policy………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Section 2: Responsibilities…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

Section 3: Major Capability Acquisition Procedures…………………………………………………… 8

APPENDIX 3A: ACATS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

3A.1. Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20

3A.2. ACATs………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20

  1. Categories……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
    1. ACAT IB Programs…………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
    1. Program Recategorization………………………………………………………………………………… 22

Appendix 3B: Program Information……………………………………………………………………………. 23

3B.1. Program Information……………………………………………………………………………………….. 23

3B.2. Information Selection……………………………………………………………………………………… 23

Appendix 3C: Additional Program Management Considerations……………………………….. 24

3C.1. Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

3C.2. Program Office Structure and Organizations………………………………………………………. 24

  1. Program Office Structure…………………………………………………………………………………. 24
  2. Joint Program Office Organization……………………………………………………………………. 24

3C.3. Program Management Responsibilities……………………………………………………………… 25

  1. Acquisition Strategies……………………………………………………………………………………… 25
  2. Program Baseline Development and Management……………………………………………… 28

3C.4. International Acquisition and Exportability………………………………………………………… 33

  1. International Acquisition and Exportability Planning………………………………………….. 33
  2. Exportability and International Acquisition Roadmap Study……………………………….. 34
  3. International Cooperative Program (ICP) Management……………………………………….. 34

3C.5. Industrial Base Analysis and Considerations………………………………………………………. 34

3C.6. Records Management………………………………………………………………………………………. 35

Appendix 3D: Product Support……………………………………………………………………………………. 36

3D.1. Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 36

3D.2. PS and Sustainment Across the Life Cycle…………………………………………………………. 36

3D.3. PSS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43

3D.4. Sustainment Metrics……………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

3D.5. PS Assessments and Reviews…………………………………………………………………………… 48

  1. Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs)………………………………………………………… 48
  2. SRs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 48

Glossary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 50

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53

Tables

Table 1. Description and Decision Authority for ACAT I – III Programs…………………………….. 20

Figures

Figure 1. Adaptive Acquisition Framework……………………………………………………………………….. 5

Figure 2. Major Capability Acquisition Model…………………………………………………………………. 10

Figure 3. Options Matrix……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

Figure 4. Sample Program Cost, Fielding, and Performance Goals Memorandum………………… 30

SECTION 1: GENERAL ISSUANCE INFORMATION

1.1.    APPLICABILITY.

This issuance applies to OSD, the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the DoD (referred to collectively in this issuance as the “DoD Components”).

1.2.    POLICY.

  1. The overarching management principles that guide the defense acquisition system are set forth in Paragraph 1.2. of DoDD 5000.01.
Text Box: Cybersecurity

Text Box: OPERATIONS AND SUSTAINMENTFigure 1. Adaptive Acquisition Framework.

 Planning PhaseI1  I2…    Execution Phase In                 In        MVP            MVCRIn     Rn
ATP: Authority to ProceedDD: Disposition DecisionFOC: Full Operational Capability
I: IterationIOC: Initial Operational CapabilityMDD: Materiel Development Decision
MS: MilestoneMVCR: Minimum Viable Capability ReleaseMVP: Minimum Viable Product
OD: Outcome DeterminationR: Release 


SECTION 2: RESPONSIBILITIES

The responsibilities in this section are in addition to those specified in DoDD 5000.01.

2.1.    UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT (USD(A&S)).

The USD(A&S) is the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) and establishes policies on and supervises all elements of the Department relating to acquisition (including system design, development, and production and procurement of goods and services) and sustainment (including logistics, maintenance, and materiel readiness).

2.2.    SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS.

The Secretary of the Military Department acquiring an MDAP represents the customer (i.e., the DoD Component(s) fielding the system). The Secretary acquiring an MDAP:

  1. In coordination with the Military Service Chiefs, balances resources against priorities and ensures appropriate trade-offs are made among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance throughout the life of the program.

2.3.    MILITARY SERVICE CHIEFS.

  1. The Military Service Chiefs, not including the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, assist the Secretary of the Military Department concerned in performing the acquisition- related functions outlined in Paragraphs (1) through (6):

SECTION 3: MAJOR CAPABILITY ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

3.1.    GENERAL PROCEDURES.

a.    Program Planning.

b.    Decision Reviews.

The purpose of decision reviews embedded in the acquisition procedures described in this section is to carefully assess a program’s readiness to proceed to the next acquisition phase and to make a sound investment decision committing the Department’s financial resources.

Consequently, reviews will be issue and data focused to facilitate an examination of relevant questions affecting the decisions under consideration and to allow the MDA to judge whether the program is ready to proceed. The policies outlined in Paragraphs (1) through (3) will guide decision reviews:

c.    DoD Process Relationships.

Acquisition, requirements, and budgeting are closely related and must operate simultaneously in close coordination. Validated requirements provide the basis for defining the products that will be acquired through the acquisition system. The budgeting process determines DoD priorities and resource allocations and provides the funds necessary to execute planned

programs. Adjustments may have to be made during a program’s life cycle to keep the three processes aligned to ensure programs are executable and to adapt to evolving circumstances. Decisions in this context must consider mission area or portfolio considerations as well as those directly impacting the program under review.

3.2.    FLEXIBLE IMPLEMENTATION.

  1. MDAs will structure program strategies and oversight, phase content, the timing and scope of decision reviews, and decision levels based on the specifics of the product being acquired, including complexity, risk, security, and urgency to satisfy validated capability requirements.

3.3.    PROGRAM ACATS.

All major capability acquisition pathway programs are designated by an ACAT. The ACAT identifies the program’s MDA, required processes, and documents. The details regarding ACATs, decision authority and associated policy are presented in Appendix 3A.

3.4.    ACQUISITION PROCESS DECISIONS AND PHASES.

  1. Acquisition decisions will be made at the lowest authorized level, commensurate with the ACAT and program risk, to ensure they are timely, and made by those with the greatest knowledge of the program.

Figure 2. Major Capability Acquisition Model.


3.5.    MDD.

a.    Purpose.

The MDD is the mandatory entry point into the major capability acquisition process and is informed by a validated requirements document (e.g., an initial capabilities document (ICD) or equivalent) and the completion of the analysis of alternatives (AoA) study guidance and the AoA study plan.

b.    At the MDD Review.

The Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE) (or DoD Component equivalent for ACAT II or below programs) will present the AoA study guidance, and the DoD Component will present the AoA study plan. For MDAPs, DCAPE issues the AoA study guidance, and approves the AoA study plan. The DoD Component will provide the plan to staff and fund program activities up to and including the next decision point, usually Milestone A.

c.    Decisions.

The MDA will determine the acquisition phase of entry and the initial review milestone.

MDA decisions will be documented in an ADM. The approved AoA study guidance and study plan will be attached to the ADM.

3.6.    MSA PHASE.

a.    Purpose.

The purpose of this phase is to conduct the AoA and other activities needed to choose the concept for the product to be acquired, to begin translating validated capability gaps into system- specific requirements, and to conduct planning to support a decision on the acquisition strategy for the product.

b.    Phase Description.

3.7.    MILESTONE A.

a.    Purpose.

solution;

priorities within that trade space;

b.    At the Milestone A Review.

program.

c.    Decisions.

The MDA will approve the acquisition strategy to determine the materiel solution, the strategy for the TMRR phase, PM waiver requests, release of the final RFP for the TMRR phase, exit criteria required to complete TMRR, and entrance criteria for the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. The MDA will document decisions in an ADM.

3.8.    TMRR PHASE.

a.    Purpose.

The TMRR phase is guided by the draft CDD and the acquisition strategy. The purpose of this phase is 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.

b.    Phase Description.

MDA, a preliminary design review (PDR) will be conducted prior to Milestone B. This phase normally includes multiple competitive sources conducting technology risk reduction activity to demonstrate new technologies in a relevant environment. An ICE and an ITRA will be conducted for MDAPs, before granting Milestone B approval. Development testing will be guided by the test and evaluation master plan.

c.    CDD Validation.

During the TMRR phase, the requirements validation authority will validate the CDD (or equivalent requirements document) for the program. This action will precede the Development RFP release decision point.

3.9.    DEVELOPMENT RFP RELEASE DECISION POINT.

a.    Purpose and Objective.

b.    At the Release Decision.

The PM will summarize TMRR phase progress and results and detail the strategy for the EMD phase. Specific attention will be given to overall affordability, the strategy for maintaining competition throughout the program life cycle, source selection criteria, contract incentives, the IP strategy, threat projections, assessments of foreign ownership, control or influence (FOCI), and the use of a modular open systems approach (MOSA) to evolve systems capability and establish and maintain interoperability.

c.    Decisions.

The MDA will approve the release of the final RFP for the EMD phase and determine the preliminary low-rate initial production (LRIP) quantity or, for an AIS, the scope of limited deployment at this decision point. Decisions resulting from the decision review will be documented in an ADM. The ADM will include specific criteria required for Milestone C approval including test and evaluation accomplishments, exportability and international acquisition planning, LRIP quantities or the limited deployment scope, affordability requirements and program goals, finalized sustainment metrics, and FYDP funding requirements.

3.10.    MILESTONE B.

a.    Purpose.

The Milestone B decision authorizes a program to enter into the EMD phase and commit the required investment resources to support the award of phase contracts. Requirements for this milestone may have been satisfied at the Development RFP release decision point; however, if significant changes have occurred between the two decisions that would alter the decisions made at the earlier point, those changes will be addressed at the Milestone B review.

b.    At the Milestone B Review.

This review requires demonstration that all sources of risk have been adequately mitigated to support a commitment to design, development and production. Risk sources include, but are not limited to, technology, threat projections, security, engineering, integration, manufacturing, sustainment and cost risk. Validated capability requirements are required for all programs. Full funding in the FYDP, compliance with affordability/program goals demonstrated through technical assessments and ICEs are required for MDAPs and programs in other categories when directed.

c.    Decisions.

The MDA will approve entry into the EMD phase and formally initiate the program by approving the acquisition program baseline (APB). The program decisions, EMD phase exit criteria, approval of the LRIP quantity, and specific technical event-based criteria for initiating production or fielding at Milestone C will be documented in an ADM.

3.11.    EMD PHASE.

a.    Purpose.

The purpose of the EMD phase is to develop, build, test, and evaluate a materiel solution to verify that all operational and implied requirements, including those for security, have been met, and to support production, deployment and sustainment decisions.

b.    Phase Description.

(KPPs) and key system attributes (KSAs). The DoD Component’s operational test organization will conduct independent evaluations, operational assessments, or limited user tests to provide initial assessments of operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and the ability to satisfy KPPs and KSAs. Opportunities to combine contractor and Government developmental testing should be maximized, and integrated developmental and operational testing will be conducted when feasible.

3.12.    MILESTONE C.

a.    Purpose.

Milestone C is the point at which a program is reviewed for entrance into the P&D phase.

b.    At the Milestone C Review.

The following information will typically be considered: the results of developmental tests and evaluations and any early operational test and evaluation; evidence that the production design is stable; the results of an operational assessment (if conducted); the maturity of the software; any significant manufacturing risks; the status of critical intelligence parameters and intelligence mission data requirements, relative to fielding timelines; and full funding.

c.    Decisions.

The MDA’s decision to approve Milestone C will authorize the program to proceed to the P&D phase, enter LRIP, or begin limited deployment for AISs, and award contracts for the phase.

d.    High Cost First Article Combined Milestone B and C Decisions.

Some programs such as spacecraft and ships will not produce prototypes during EMD for use solely as test articles because of the high cost of each article. In that case, the first article produced will be tested and evaluated, and then fielded as an operational asset. The acquisition approach for these programs can be tailored by measures such as combining development and initial production investment commitments and a combined Milestone B and C. Additional decision points with appropriate criteria may be established for subsequent production commitments.

3.13.    P&D PHASE.

a.    Purpose.

The purpose of the P&D phase is to produce and deploy requirements-compliant materiel solutions to the receiving operating organizations.

b.    Phase Description.

The P&D phase is guided by an updated CDD if required, the acquisition strategy, and the test and evaluation master plan. In this phase the product is produced and fielded or deployed for use by operational units.

3.14.    FRP DECISION OR FD DECISION.

The MDA will conduct an FRP decision review to assess the results of initial OT&E and initial manufacturing to determine whether to proceed to FRP. Proceeding to FRP requires control of the manufacturing process, acceptable performance and reliability, the establishment of adequate sustainment and support systems, and for MDAPs, an ICE and an ITRA. This decision will be informed by consideration of any new validated threat environments that might affect operational

effectiveness. The MDA may consult with the requirements validation authority as part of the decision making process to ensure that capability requirements are current. The MDA will document the results of the review in an ADM.

3.15.    OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT (O&S) PHASE.

a.    Purpose.

This phase executes the PSS, satisfies materiel readiness and operational support performance requirements including personnel training, and sustains the system over its life cycle, including disposal. The O&S phase begins upon fielding of the first system(s), which may precede IOC, and is based on an MDA-approved PSS.

b.    Phase Description.

This phase includes two major efforts: sustainment and disposal. The MDA-approved PSS is the basis for the activities conducted during this phase.

During this phase the PM will deploy the support package and monitor its performance according to the PSS.

At the end of its useful life, a system will be demilitarized and disposed of in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements and policy relating to safety (including explosives

safety), security, and the environment, in accordance with the PSS. Disposal planning will include consideration of retirement, disposition, and reclamation.

APPENDIX 3A: ACATS

3A.1. PURPOSE.

This appendix provides the descriptions and dollar thresholds for the ACATs, and prescribes the policy for assignment of the MDAs.

3A.2. ACATS.

a.    Categories.

An acquisition program will be categorized based on the criteria in Table 1. Table 1 contains the description and decision authority for ACAT I through ACAT III programs. The DAE or designee will review ACAT ID programs. Pursuant to Section 2430 of Title 10, U.S.C., the service acquisition executive (SAE) will review ACAT IB programs unless otherwise specified. The CAE will review ACAT IC programs. The CAE, or the individual designated by the CAE, will review ACAT II and ACAT III and below programs.

Table 1. Description and Decision Authority for ACAT I – III Programs.

ACATReason for ACAT DesignationDecision Authority
    ACAT IMDAP1 (Section 2430 of Title 10, U.S.C.)Dollar value for all increments of the program: estimated by the DAE to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, and test and evaluation of more than $525 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 constant dollars or, for procurement, of more than $3.065 billion in FY 2020 constant dollarsMDA designationMDA designation as special interest3ACAT ID: DAE ACAT IB: SAE2 ACAT IC: Head of the DoD Component or, if delegated, the CAE
      ACAT IIDoes not meet criteria for ACAT IMajor system (Section 2302d of Title 10, U.S.C.)Dollar value: estimated by the DoD Component head to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, and test and evaluation of more than $200 million in FY 2020 constant dollars, or for procurement of more than $920 million in FY 2020 constant dollarsMDA designation (Section 2302 of Title 10, U.S.C.)  CAE or the individual designated by the CAE4
ACAT IIIDoes not meet dollar value thresholds for ACAT II or aboveIs not designated a “major system” by the MDADesignated by the CAE4
Footnotes
Unless designated an MDAP by the Secretary of Defense (SecDef), AIS programs5, Defense Business System programs, and programs or projects carried out using rapid prototyping or fielding procedures pursuant to Section 804 of Public Law (PL) 114-92, do not meet the definition of an MDAP.ACAT IB decision authority is assigned pursuant to Section 2430 of Title 10, U.S.C. Paragraph 3A.2.b. provides DoD implementation details.The Special Interest designation is typically based on one or more of the following factors: technological complexity; congressional interest; a large commitment of resources; or the program is critical to the achievement of a capability or set of capabilities, part of a system of systems, or a joint program. Programs that already meet the MDAP thresholds cannot be designated as Special Interest.As delegated by the SecDef or Secretary of the Military Department.


Table 1. Description and Decision Authority for ACAT I – III Programs, Continued.
Footnotes
5. An AIS is a system of computer hardware, computer software, data or telecommunications that performs functions such as collecting, processing, storing, transmitting, and displaying information. Excluded are computer resources, both hardware and software, that are: embedded as an integral part of a weapon or weapon system; used for highly sensitive classified programs (as determined by the SecDef) or other highly sensitive information technology programs (as determined by the DoD Chief Information Officer; or determined by the DAE or designee to be better overseen as a non- AIS program (e.g., a program with a low ratio of research, development, testing, and evaluation funding to total program acquisition costs or that requires significant hardware development). An AIS that breaches the dollar thresholds in Section 2302d of Title 10, U.S.C., as adjusted, is a “major system.”

to use the Defense Acquisition Visibility Environment system for preparation and management of APBs and SARs, to enable continued efficient and streamlined execution of Congressional reporting for all MDAPs, including ACAT IB programs, through the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition Enablers).

c.    Program Re-categorization.

The MDA will consider re-categorization when at any point in a program there is program cost growth within 10 percent of the next highest ACAT level.

APPENDIX 3B: PROGRAM INFORMATION

This appendix identifies the information applicable to programs employing the major capability acquisition pathway and specifies the policy applicable to information selection.

3B.1. PROGRAM INFORMATION.

  1. The tables described in Paragraphs 3B.1.a(1) through 3B.1.a (9) identify program information requirements, and have been placed online at https://www.dau.edu/mdid/Pages/Default.aspx to facilitate access to content:

3B.2. INFORMATION SELECTION.

The policy outlined in Paragraphs 3B.2.a. and 3B.2.b. will govern the applicability and selection of program information:

  1. Statutory requirements must be satisfied unless the statute allows the requirement to be waived.

APPENDIX 3C: ADDITIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

3C.1. PURPOSE.

This appendix describes a broad range of policies and procedures applicable to the management of major capability acquisition programs.

3C.2. PROGRAM OFFICE STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATIONS.

a.    Program Office Structure.

It is a program manager’s responsibility to fully understand the skills and capacity required for successful program execution and for the CAE to provide those skills to ensure that programs execute successfully. Program offices will be established prior to Milestone A or earlier as necessary. Program offices for MDAPs will be staffed in key leadership positions with military or DoD civilian employees qualified in accordance with DoDI 5000.66. Key leadership positions include the PM and deputy PM, and the other positions identified in DoDI 5000.66.

b.    Joint Program Office Organization.

3C.3. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES.

PMs direct the development, production, deployment, PS, sustainment, and supportability of new defense systems. Management activities will be designed to achieve the cost, schedule, and performance parameters specified in the MDA-approved APB, and include PS considerations.

The tools outlined in Paragraphs 3C.3.a. thorugh e. will be used to facilitate effective program planning and execution.

a.    Acquisition Strategies.

The PM will develop and execute an approved acquisition strategy. This document is the PM’s plan for program execution across the entire program life cycle.

Pursuant to Section 2446a of Title 10, U.S.C., PMs are responsible for evaluating and implementing MOSA to the maximum extent feasible and cost effective. This approach integrates technical requirements with contracting mechanisms and legal considerations to support a more rapid evolution of capabilities and technologies throughout the product life cycle through the use of architecture modularity, system interfaces that are compliant with widely supported and consensus-based standards, if they are available and suitable, and appropriate business practices.

  1. To enable incremental development, and to enhance competition, innovation, and interoperability, MDAPs that receive Milestone A or B approval after January 1, 2019, must be designed and developed with MOSA to the maximum extent practicable.
  1. How MOSA will be used, including business and technical considerations.

future increments. cycle.

addressed.

approach to ensure the system can operate in the applicable cyber threat environment.

b.    Program Baseline Development and Management.

The APB documents the program cost, schedule, and performance baselines, and is the fundamental binding agreement between the MDA, the CAE if applicable, the PEO, and the PM. The PM is responsible for developing the APB. KPPs from the validated CDD are listed, verbatim, in the APB. The APB serves as the basis for reporting to the MDA through the DoD management information system.

c.    Investment Management.

The procedures outlined in Paragraphs 3C.3.c.(1)(a) through (d) are applicable to all MDAPs initiated after October 1, 2017, without regard to what milestone initiates the program.

Figure 3. Options Matrix.


Figure 4. Sample Program Cost, Fielding, and Performance Goals Memorandum.

For MDAPs, it is DoD policy to budget to the DCAPE ICE unless an alternative estimate is specifically approved by the MDA. PMs will also develop a “should cost” estimate as a management tool to control and reduce cost. PMs should not allow the ICE to become a self- fulfilling prophecy.

  1. “Should cost” analysis can be used during contract negotiations, particularly for sole source procurements, and throughout program execution including sustainment. PMs are to proactively seek out and eliminate low-value-added or unnecessary elements of program cost, to motivate better cost performance wherever possible, and to reward those that succeed in achieving those goals. “Should cost” estimates used in contract negotiations will be based on the government’s reasonable expectation of successful contractor performance, consistent with the contractor’s previous experience and other relevant data.

d.    Risk Management.

chain.

process.

hazards, PMs are responsible for documenting the associated risks and for ensuring that ESOH risks have been accepted by the following acceptance authorities: the CAE for high risks, PEO- level for serious risks, and the PM for medium and low risks. User-representative approval is required prior to high and serious risk acceptance. For joint programs, the ESOH risk acceptance authorities reside within the lead DoD Component.

e.    Configuration Steering Board (CSB).

The CAE for each DoD Component will form and chair a CSB with broad executive membership, as identified in Section 814 of PL 110-417, as amended.

3C.4. INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION AND EXPORTABILITY.

a.    International Acquisition and Exportability Planning.

PMs will integrate international acquisition and exportability planning into the program’s acquisition strategy beginning at the entry milestone and continuing through all phases of the acquisition process. PMs will:

U.S.-only design and not planning for system export require an MDA-approved exportability design waiver which must be reviewed at each milestone. If a program has been approved for a waiver for a U.S.-only design, the MDA will notify the USD(A&S) and the requirements validation authority.

b.    Exportability and International Acquisition Roadmap Study.

For systems with export markets, the programs must conduct an exportability roadmap study beginning no later than Milestone B. Additional guidance regarding the content of the study is included in the DAG.

c.    International Cooperative Program (ICP) Management.

3C.5. INDUSTRIAL BASE ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATIONS.

  1. Industrial base analysis is a continuing process with two primary components, both of which rely in part on information from program management. The first gathers program specific industrial base information to create the appropriate acquisition strategy for a program; the second engages throughout the program life cycle to provide feedback and updates. The objective is to ensure that the DoD can:

3C.6. RECORDS MANAGEMENT.

PMs must comply with the records management requirements of Chapter 31 of Title 44, U.S.C. and DoDI 5015.02 for the information created, collected, and retained in the form of electronic records. DoDI 5000.82 provides additional guidance on records management for programs containing information technology.

APPENDIX 3D: PRODUCT SUPPORT

3D.1. PURPOSE.

This appendix describes the application of PS planning, policies, and procedures to provide supportability and sustainment over the program life cycle. It also describes the elements of the PS approach needed to achieve desired materiel readiness outcomes and reduce total life-cycle costs.

3D.2. PS AND SUSTAINMENT ACROSS THE LIFE CYCLE.

Sustainment planning and O&S cost affordability are an integral element of the capability requirements and acquisition process from program inception, including requirements outlined in Sections 2334, 2337, 2337a, 2366a, 2366b, 2366c, 2441, 2443, 2448a, and 2474 of Title 10,

U.S.C., and in the JCIDS Manual, Annex D, Sustainment KPP Guide.

  1. DoD Components, Service resource managers, and PEOs ensure that early program development and design includes affordable readiness and maintainability, including the integrated risk management of systems engineering, PSSs, and O&S costs as reflected in the AoA and acquisition strategies. Additionally, capability portfolio management and affordability determination processes inform DoD Component cost positions and program life-cycle estimates, requirements, acquisition strategies, and PS strategies.

The following will be conducted pursuant to Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C.

Implement performance-based support packages that utilize performance metrics. Support packages are based on the output of a PS BCA, and are intended to satisfy warfighter relevant performance requirements that facilitate enduring and affordable sustainment. They will use, track and adjust appropriate metrics to meet warfighter operational support requirements over the system life cycle, and include the best use of public and private sector capabilities through government/industry partnering initiatives, in accordance with statutory requirements.

The PS BCA validates the support package, and it is the means to tailor a PSS by weighing cost benefits and identifying key risks which enable appropriate trade-off analyses. Paragraph 3D.3.c.(1) provides additional details.

Detailed in Paragraph 3D.3. of this appendix, the PSS is the principal document governing the system’s product support planning and sustainment. Support packages are documented within the PSS.

Ensure that PS arrangements for the weapon system describe how such arrangements will ensure efficient procurement, management, and allocation of existing government-owned parts inventories prior to use and to prevent unnecessary procurement of such parts as required by Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C. When executing commercial PS strategies, programs should draw on existing on-hand and due-in government inventory prior to procuring items from commercial providers. The PM will coordinate with cognizant government inventory managers to ensure they are aware of the reduction in demand. This will ensure stocking levels are adjusted to reflect reduced future demand given the program’s planned reliance on commercial sources of supply.

Pursuant to Section 2337a of Title 10, U.S.C., with significant refinement after Milestone C and IOC, PMs are to develop a RAM improvement strategy, at an affordable cost, that will utilize failure trend analyses, updated failure modes, effects and criticality analysis (or defect tracking for software), and other engineering data sources derived during the systems engineering process in accordance with DoDI 4151.22 and DoDD 4151.18. The RAM improvement strategy will minimize total life-cycle cost and employ the full spectrum of maintenance support structures available to sustain military materiel including organic or unique military capabilities, performance based support packages in accordance with Paragraph 3D.2.b.(1), commercial sector support, partnering, and competition as applicable.

Starting at MDD, with significant refinement by program inception, sustainment factors will be given full consideration at all key acquisition decisions throughout the program life cycle. Consideration will include appropriate measures to reduce O&S costs, and to manage sustainment risks by addressing supportability early in system design and development, pursuant to Section 2337a of Title 10, U.S.C. The continuous consideration of sustainment factors will lead to risk and cost reduction activities.

The PSS satisfies the statutory requirement in Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C. Paragraph 3D.3. details PSS requirements and planning factors. Commencing at MDD and updated throughout the life cycle, an affordable and effective performance-based support package will be developed and employed to maximize competition; improve materiel availability, operational availability, reliability, and maintainability; and reduce operation and

sustainment costs across the life cycle. Pursuant to the sections of Title 10, U.S.C., identified in Subparagraphs 1. through 6., and in accordance with this issuance, the support package will be the basis for all sustainment efforts to achieve and sustain warfighter requirements and describe:

  1. Core logistics capability pursuant to Section 2464;

PMs will address programmatic environment, safety, and occupational health evaluation requirements throughout the program life cycle. PMs will manage hazardous materials in accordance with Aerospace Industries Association National Aerospace Standard 411, and National Aerospace Standard 411-1, tailored if necessary to meet their program’s needs.

Software product support planning begins at program inception and continues throughout the program life cycle. The PSM is required to coordinate with the software development lead to determine what technical data is required to develop a best value support package that factors in quality, cybersecurity, risk management framework, technology refresh, and deployment over the program life cycle. Paragraph 3D.3.c.(7) of this appendix provides additional details.

Continuously monitor and perform modifications to the PS arrangement to correct any trends that negatively impact availability and cost. Assessments of PS performance are also included to assist PMs, PSMs, system operators and maintainers, resource sponsors, and materiel enterprise stakeholders, take corrective action to prevent degraded materiel readiness and O&S cost growth on a recurring basis, no less than every 5 years, pursuant to Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C.

Competition or the option of competition will be considered at the prime and subcontract levels for large and small business, and system and sub-system levels pursuant to Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C., and PL 111-23.

Record the results and resolution of the core logistics assessment pursuant to

Section 2366a of Title 10, U.S.C., detailed in the Milestone and Phase Information Requirements Table at https://www.dau.edu/mdid/Pages/Default.aspx.

Throughout the program life cycle, DoD Components will require CSDR on all sustainment efforts and contracts, including government sustainment efforts that exceed the cost reporting thresholds. Include identification of the cost reporting thresholds and additional CSDR requirements for sustainment programs pursuant to Section 2337a of Title 10, U.S.C., and in accordance with DoDI 5000.73.

The PM balances the energy performance of a system with the provisioning of energy to sustain required forces/systems by the operational commander in relevant threat environments in accordance with the JCIDS Manual Energy KPP Guide. Pursuant to Section 2926 of Title 10, U.S.C., the energy KPP identifies energy demands and supply relationships.

The PM will perform SCRM and supply chain threat assessments that provide an analytic foundation for counterintelligence to support defense acquisitions. SCRM should include cybersecurity of SCRM and item unique identification-enabled serialized item management (in accordance with DoDI O-5240.24 and the Threat Summary described in Annex G of the JCIDS Manual). No source may be excluded from a procurement based upon SCRM considerations absent proper exercise of appropriate legal authority. Any such exclusion must be coordinated with and approved by the contracting officer and counsel.

Pursuant to Section 2443 of Title 10, U.S.C., and in support of the TMRR, EMD, and P&D phases, DoD Components will ensure that solicitations to be used in weapon system procurements include criteria for sustainment factors principally affected by design and development, and that those criteria receive ample emphasis in source selection. Critical sustainment cost drivers include:

  1. Manpower. Includes total life cycle funding requirements for military, government, and contractor manpower. The future impact of contractor logistics support and

interim contractor support will be determined with required annual operations and maintenance funding.

To provide for integrated PS, determine and update as necessary, the program’s mix of government and industry providers supported by appropriate analyses, because PS integrators and PS providers may be organic, commercial or a combination pursuant to Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C.

Determine necessary IP including technical data package deliverables, method of delivery, and associated license rights consistent with the program’s IP strategy, pursuant to Sections 2320, 2322, and 2460 of Title 10, U.S.C.

Perform sustainment and energy metrics assessment mapping to the Sustainment and Energy KPPs and Sustainment KSAs to manage sustainment performance in accordance with the JCIDS Manual and DoDI 3110.05.

As part of the corrosion prevention and mitigation planning required by Section 2228 of Title 10, U.S.C., incorporate DoDI 5000.67-required CPC maintenance processes to mitigate the impact of corrosion on materiel readiness and sustainment costs. Pursuant to Section 2366b of Title 10, U.S.C., DoD Components will identify and evaluate sustainment costs, including the costs related to corrosion prevention, throughout the life cycle.

Implement a risk-based process to prevent counterfeit material from entering into the DoD supply chain and to prevent the DoD acquisition of counterfeit material, pursuant to PL

112-81, and in accordance with DoDI 4140.67, and Sections 252.246-2007 and 252.246-2008 of the DFARS.

  1. In accordance with Volumes 1 through 3 of DoD Manual 4160.28, ensure compliance with statutory requirements to develop a disposal plan to include demilitarization and controlled inventory item coding of system, subsystems, or components, with sufficient lead time before the disposal or retirement of the first asset.

Pursuant to Section 803 of PL 113-66, implement a risk-based and proactive DMSMS/Obsolescence Management Plan to monitor materials, technologies, and items throughout the program life cycle. Update the DMSMS and Obsolescence Management Plan and strategy on a recurring basis, no less than every 5 years. Implement cost-effective resolutions of DMSMS/obsolescence issues before they negatively impact the program. Ensure identification of obsolete parts in specifications and develop plans for suitable replacements as part of the program’s plan.

Ensure program office internal controls are established at Milestone B for financial systems reporting processes (specifically those supporting logistics information systems pursuant to PL 112-239 and Section 524 of Title 40, U.S.C.) to support overarching supply accountability for all classes of supply.

Utilize a management and analysis approach to identify and implement system and enterprise sustainment cost reduction initiatives. “Should cost” targets will be established and reviewed annually based on analysis of acquisition sustainment costs and O&S cost element drivers. PMs will capture PS metrics and cost data in DoD Component- and DoD-level information systems, and track performance against should-cost targets, pursuant to Section 837 of PL 115-91 and as implemented in Section 215.407-4 of the DFARS.

At Milestone C and beyond, ensure initiations of system modifications, as necessary, to improve performance, enhance sustainability, and reduce ownership costs, is consistent with limitations prescribed in Section 2244a of Title 10, U.S.C.

Ensure PMs responsible for renewal of sustainment contracts that include public-private partnerships with DoD maintenance depots, when supported by a PS BCA analysis, will include the use of DLA storage and distribution capacity in the terms of renewal public-private partnership arrangements and negotiate the transfer of government-owned inventory from commercial to DLA facilities, as specified in the arrangement.

Ensure sustainable and auditable inventory processes that produce accurate accountability of DoD-owned assets with a full reconciliation to the financial records. Determine a baseline physical count for all DoD-owned assets (inventory/operating materials and supplies/equipment/real property), including both government property being managed by a contractor and that is being furnished to a contractor. Maintain and fully reconcile accountability of the inventory baseline in the financial records and the system of records designated for DoD- owned assets, with the location, quantity, and current condition of all unconsumed DoD-owned assets in the designated system of record; and internal controls for accountability of all items moving in or out after establishing the baseline.

Minimize unique ATE by utilizing designated DoD automatic test system families for all ATE hardware and software in DoD field and depot operations. Leverage common commodities (component items, support equipment, and support items) to the maximum extent possible before pursuing unique solutions to reduce support cost and logistical impacts.

Planning for facilities management of real property investments (facilities and infrastructure) necessary for training, operations and sustainment support will incorporate value engineering in accordance with DoDI 4245.14.

As defined in Volume 3 of DoD Manual 4140.01, weapons system PMs, with Military Department and DLA participation, as appropriate:

  1. Give consideration to existing organic supplies.

Support strategies to meet dependencies on intelligence data and Intelligence Community-provided data sources.

3D.3. PSS.

The PSS satisfies the statutory requirement of Section 2337 of Title 10, U.S.C., and the regulatory requirement in Paragraph 3D.2.b.(1)(c) of this appendix. PMs for all programs are responsible for developing and maintaining a PSS to document the support package, beginning at the Development RFP Release Decision Point and throughout the program life cycle. The PSS outlines the execution of the support package and will describe sustainment requirements in system design and the technical, business, and management activities to develop, implement, and deliver a support package that achieves effective and affordable operational materiel readiness outcomes. The acquisition strategy will also include an overview of the PSS and sustainment- related contracts.

  1. The USD(A&S), or as designated, will approve the PSS for an ACAT ID program, a USD(A&S)-designated priority business system, or a special interest program.

then implemented major modifications to the system and when there are changes to the support package including current risks and cost reduction activities.

The requirement for core logistics capability and the workload to sustain those capabilities are defined in Section 2464 of Title 10, U.S.C.

DoDI 4160.28, Volumes 1 through 4 of DoD Manual 4160.21, and DoD Manual 4160.28, the RSSP will be included in the PSS by Milestone B and updated appropriately throughout the life cycle when the PSS is reviewed and whenever there are significant schedule changes to the replacement system. The replacement system PM will coordinate with the legacy system PM when developing and updating the RSSP.

For MDAPs, the plan, as outlined and required by Section 815 of PL 110-41, is prepared to support Milestone C. It must include the review cycle for assessing tool retention across the life of the system. If an MDA (other than the DAE) determines that preservation and storage of unique tooling is no longer required, a waiver will be submitted to the DAE for notification to Congress.

IP strategy documentation originates in the acquisition strategy, transitions to the PSS during the O&S phase, and will be updated appropriately during the O&S phase in accordance with the milestone and phase information requirements table online at https://www.dau.edu/mdid/Pages/Default.aspx.

This annex will explain how the program is executing the requirements in Paragraphs 3C.3.d.(2) and 3D.2.b.(5)(a) to manage ESOH risks and requirements across the life cycle. This annex will incorporate a summary of the current hazard tracking data with risk levels, prohibited and restricted hazardous materials usage and initiatives, and PL 91-190/Executive Order 12114 planning and compliance status, including military construction and installation management requirements.

Beginning with the PSS that supports a Milestone B decision, the PSS must include the program’s software PSS. It should reflect results of the PDR and the O&S cost risk determined during TMRR. The software PSS is documented as a section within the body of the PSS or as a separate annex. It is updated appropriately throughout the program life cycle.

PMs will consider including additional annexes or reference other documents in the PSS. Examples include:

In accordance with DoDI 4160.28, Volumes 1 through 4 of DoD Manual 4160.21, and DoD Manual 4160.28, the program’s system disposal plan will be included in the PSS before Milestone B and updated appropriately throughout the program life cycle.

P&D planning should include a facilities management plan that details support for warfighting capability and may include temporary or permanent facilities necessary for operations and support. During P&D Phase, the acquiring organization provides the warfighter with the needed capability, to include any required training, spares, technical data to include known hazards and accepted mishap risks, computer software, temporary or permanent facilities and/or infrastructure, support equipment, maintenance, or other logistics support necessary for operation.

Paragraph 3D.2.b.(6)(a) provides details on CPC planning.

3D.4. SUSTAINMENT METRICS.

The sustainment and energy KPPs are as critical to a program’s success as cost, schedule, and performance. PMs will use availability, sustainment, and energy cost metrics as triggers to conduct further investigation and analysis into drivers of those metrics, to develop “should cost” targets, and to develop strategies for improving reliability, availability, maintainability, and energy supportability, resilience, and conservation of such systems at a reduced cost.

  1. The materiel availability KPP, as defined in the JCIDS Manual Sustainment KPP Guide, will be based on the entire system inventory, including attrition reserve and prepositioned systems, and covers the timeframe from placement into operational service through the planned end of service life.

As required by the JCIDS Manual, mission reliability and logistics reliability are the design metrics that have the most significant impact on the program’s operational availability and O&S cost.

As required by the JCIDS Manual, corrective maintenance, and the required maintenance burden, impact design and the program’s operational availability and O&S cost.

Energy performance is a key component of system and unit performance and relates to the required energy consumption needed to perform functions or tasks in operational modes, mission profiles and durations, and environmental conditions. Demands for fuel and electric power in capability solutions will be optimized, because they directly affect the demand on the force to provide and protect critical energy supplies. System fuel and electric power demands, and operation when not connected to main utilities or when not receiving supply supporting the extended periods that are consistent with support for strategic analysis products, will be included.

DoD Components will ensure reliability and maintainability data from operational and developmental testing and evaluation, fielding, all levels of repair and their associated manpower, and real property informs estimates of O&S costs for major weapon systems.

The average total downtime required to restore an asset to its operational capability, measures the effectiveness of the supply chain and support infrastructure (e.g., customer wait time, logistics response time, retrograde time). It is an important element in assessing a system’s affordability across its life cycle and identifies constraints and opportunities of a system’s support package and PS arrangements.

Outcome metrics to support sustainment elements included in capability requirements documentation or required by the DoD Component to manage the system development, support package, and supply chain to develop and maintain the system. Additional metrics that measure the cost of achieved availability, which correlates funds spent on sustainment and the resulting, measured, operational and materiel availabilities of the system, aid in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of a program’s current PS arrangement.

3D.5. PS ASSESSMENTS AND REVIEWS.

The PM and PSM will continually assess the PS and logistics approach that support DoD Component-level program support assessments and technical reviews (e.g., systems engineering and test) to ensure the system design and PS performance are integrated to achieve the sustainment metrics and inform applicable modeling and simulation tools. Assessments and reviews assist PMs, PSMs, system operators and maintainers, resource sponsors, and materiel enterprise stake holders to take corrective action to prevent degraded materiel readiness or O&S cost growth on a recurring basis no less than every 5 years. The assessments and reviews outlined in this section are required, and their results will inform the PSS and analyses as appropriate.

a.    Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs).

b.    SRs.

readiness.

GLOSSARY

G.1.    ACRONYMS.

AcronymMeaning
ACAT ADM AIS AoA APB ATEacquisition category acquisition decision memorandum automated information systems analysis of alternatives acquisition program baseline automatic test equipment
BCAbusiness case analysis
CAE CDD CPC CSB CSDRcomponent acquisition executive capability development document corrosion prevention and control Configuration Steering Board cost and software data reporting
DAE DAG DCAPE DFARS DLA DMSMS DoDDDefense Acquisition Executive Defense Acquisition Guidebook Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Defense Logistics Agency diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortages DoD directive
DoDIDoD instruction
DOT&EDirector of Operational Test and Evaluation
EMD ESOH EVMSengineering and manufacturing development environment, safety, and occupational health earned value management system
FD FOCI FRP FY FYDPfull-deployment foreign ownership, control or influence full-rate production fiscal year Future Years Defense Program
GEMgoal establishment meeting
ICD ICE ICPinitial capabilities document independent cost estimate international cooperative program


AcronymMeaning
ILAindependent logistics assessment
IOCinitial operational capability
IPintellectual property
ITRAindependent technical risk assessment
JCIDSJoint Capabilities Integration and Development System
KPPkey performance parameter
KSAkey system attribute
LRIPlow-rate initial production
MDAmilestone decision authority
MDAPmajor defense acquisition program
MDDmateriel development decision
MOSAmodular open systems approach
MSAmateriel solution analysis
O&Soperations and support
P&Dproduction and deployment
PLPublic Law
PEOprogram executive officer
PMprogram manager
PSproduct support
PSMproduct support manager
RAMreliability, availability, and maintainability
RFPrequest for proposal
RSSPreplaced system sustainment plan
SAEservice acquisition executive
SCRMsupply chain risk management
SecDefSecretary of Defense
SRsustainment review
TMRRtechnology maturation and risk reduction
U.S.C.United States Code
USD(A&S)Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment


A complete glossary of acquisition terms is maintained on the Defense Acquisition University website. The Defense Acquisition University Glossary can be found at https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/DAU-Glossary.

REFERENCES

Aerospace Industries Association, National Aerospace Standard, 411, Hazardous Materials Management Program,” current version

Aerospace Industries Association, National Aerospace Standard, 411-1, “Hazardous Materials Target List,” current version

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System1

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, current version

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, “Operating and Support Cost-Estimating Guide,” March 20142

DoD Directive 4151.18, “Maintenance of Military Materiel,” March 31, 2004, as amended DoD Directive 5000.01, “The Defense Acquisition System.” May 12, 2003, as amended DoD Directive 5135.02, “Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

(USD(A&S)),” July 15, 2020

DoD Instruction 2010.06, “Materiel Interoperability and Standardization with Allies and Coalition Partners,” July 29, 2009, as amended

DoD Instruction 2040.02, “International Transfers of Technology, Articles, and Services,” March 27, 2014, as amended

DoD Instruction 3110.05, “Readiness-Based Material Condition Reporting for Mission-Essential Systems and Equipment,” September 25, 2006, as amended

DoD Instruction 4140.67, “DoD Counterfeit Prevention Policy,” April 26, 2013, as amended DoD Instruction 4151.20, “Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process,” May

4, 2018, as amended

DoD Instruction 4151.22, “Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) for Materiel Maintenance,” October 16, 2012, as amended

DoD Instruction 4160.28, “DoD Demilitarization (DEMIL) Program,” April 7, 2011, as amended DoD Instruction 4245.14, “DoD Value Engineering (VE) Program,” October 26, 2012, as

amended

DoD Instruction 5000.02, “Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework,” January 23, 2020

DoD Instruction 5000.66, “Defense Acquisition Workforce Education, Training, Experience, and Career Development Program,” July 27, 2017, as amended

DoD Instruction 5000.67, “Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD Military Equipment and Infrastructure,” February 1, 2010, as amended

DoD Instruction 5000.73, “Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures,” March 13, 2020

1 Available at https://www.jcs.mil/; requires authorized log-in

2 https://www.cape.osd.mil/files/OS_Guide_v9_March_2014.pdf

DoD Instruction 5000.80, “Operation of the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA),” December 30, 2019

DoD Instruction 5000.82, “Acquisition of Information Technology,” April 21, 2020 DoD Instruction 5015.02, “DoD Records Management Program,” February 24, 2015, as

amended

DoD Instruction 5025.01, “DoD Issuances Program,” August 1, 2016, as amended DoD Instruction O-5240.24, “Counterintelligence (CI) Activities Supporting Research,

Development, and Acquisition (RDA),” June 8, 2011, as amended

DoD Manual 4140.01, Volume 3, “DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Sourcing,” October 9, 2019

DoD Manual 4160.21, Volume 1, “Defense Materiel Disposition: Disposal Guidance and Procedures,” October 22, 2015, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.21, Volume 2, “Defense Materiel Disposition: Property Disposal and Reclamation,” October 22, 2015, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.21, Volume 3, “Defense Materiel Disposition: Reutilization, Transfer, And Sale of Property,” October 22, 2015, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.21, Volume 4, “Defense Materiel Disposition: Instructions for Hazardous Property and Other Special Processing Materiel,” October 22, 2015, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.28, Volume 1, “Defense Demilitarization: Program Administration” August 9, 2017, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.28, Volume 2, “Defense Demilitarization: Demilitarization Coding,” March 9, 2017, as amended

DoD Manual 4160.28, Volume 3, “Defense Demilitarization: Procedural Guidance,” June 7, 2011, as amended

Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions,” January 4, 1979

Performance Based Logistics Guidebook: A Guide to Developing Performance-Based Arrangements, 2016, as amended3

Public Law 91-190, “National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,” January 1, 1970, as amended Public Law 110-417, “The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2009,” October 14, 2008

Public Law 111-23, “Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009,” May 22, 2009 Public Law 112-81, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,” December 31,

2011

Public Law 112-239, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,” January 2, 2013

3 https://www.dau.edu/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents%20HTML/PBL%20Guidebook.aspx

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

Public Law 114-92, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016,” January 6, 2015 Public Law 115-91, “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018,” January 3, 2017 Public Law 115-232, “The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2019,” August 13, 2018

Specification Number DI-IPSC-81427 B, “Software Development Plan (SDP),” March 13, 20174 Specification Number DI-IPSC-81429 A, “Software Transition Plan (STrP),” January 10, 20005 United States Code, Title 10

United States Code, Title 40 United States Code, Title 44

4 http://everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-IPSC/DI-IPSC-81427B_55763/

5 http://everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-IPSC/DI-IPSC-81429A_3757/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All Content © 2014-2023 The Daniel Group LLC | All Rights Reserved | No Use Without Prior Written Authorization