dod acquisition policy update september 27, 2016 · dod acquisition policy update september 27,...

DOD Acquisition Policy Update

September 27, 2016

DoD Decision Support Systems

Module Objective:

Recognize the challenges of and

opportunities for integrated acquisition,

from the DoD Decision Support

Systems perspective, and formulate

tailored strategies to promote effective

integration and collaboration both

within and outside of your organization

2

Outline

• DoD Decision Support Systems

– Acquisition (DOD 5000)

– Requirements/capabilities (JCIDS)

– Resources (PPBES)

3

4

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting and

Execution

Joint Capabilities

Integration and

Development

System (JCIDS)

Defense

Acquisition

System


Effective Interaction

Essential for Success

Do You Understand This Chart?

5

Understand That Chart?

• If not…

• No worries!!!

• It has changed!!!!

• We now have six life cycle

models!!!!

6

7

Product-Tailored Acquisition Models

• Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program

• Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program

• Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program

• Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)

• Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)

• Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program

One Sizes DOES NOT

Fit All Programs…..

Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program

8

• … model of a hardware intensive development program such as a major weapons platform

• This is the “classic” model that has existed in some form in all previous editions of this

instruction

• It is the starting point for most military weapon systems; however, these products almost always

contain software development resulting in some form of Hybrid Model A

BA C

= Milestone Decision = Decision PointLegend:

Materiel Development

Decision

Capability Development

Document (CDD) Validation

Full-Rate Production

(FRP)Decision

Development Request for

Proposals (RFP) Release Decision

Initial Operational Capability (IOC)

Full Operational Capability (FOC)

Materiel Solution Analysis

Technology Maturation &

RiskReduction

Production & Deployment

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

Disposal

Low-Rate InitialProduction(LRIP)

OT&E

Operations & Support

Model 1: Hardware

Sustainment

Rt: .6”Bottom: 1.7

9

Model 2: Defense Unique Software Intensive Program

• …a model of a program that is dominated by the need to develop a complex, usually defense unique,

software program that will not be deployed until several software builds have been completed

• The central feature of this model is the planned software builds – a series of testable, integrated subsets

of the overall capability – which together with clearly defined decision criteria, ensure adequate progress

is being made before fully committing to subsequent builds

• Examples of this type of product include military unique command and control systems and significant

upgrades to the combat systems found on major weapons systems such as surface combatants and

tactical aircraft.

BA C

Full Deployment

Decision (FDD) Full

Deployment (FD)

MaterielSolutionAnalysis


Risk Reduction



Decision

Deployment Operations & Support

Disposal

IOC

Build 1.1

Build 1.2

Build 1.3Build 0.1

Risk

Reduction


CDD Validation

Build 1.5Build 2.1*

Integration

OT&E

LimitedDeployment

Model 2: Software Intensive

Sustainment

Left: .1Rt: .2

Top: .2Bottom: 1.3

* The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.

Development RFP

Release Decision

Build 1.4

Model 3: Incrementally Fielded Software Intensive Program

10

• This model is distinguished from the previous model by the rapid delivery of capability through several limited

fieldings in lieu of single Milestones B and C and a single full deployment. Each limited fielding results from a

specific build, and provides the user with mature and tested sub-elements of the overall capability.

• Several builds and fieldlings will typically be necessary to satisfy approved requirements for an increment of

capability.

• …will apply in cases where commercial off-the-shelf software, such as commercial business systems with

multiple modular capabilities, are acquired and adapted for DoD applications

BA

Full Deployment

Decision (FDD)


Risk Reduction

Development &Fielding


Decision

Build 1

Build 0

RiskReduction

Build

CDD Validation

OT&E

Build n

Build 2

Limited Fielding Decisions

. . .

Sustainment

Full Deployment

(FD)

IOC


Build 2.1

OT&EBuild 2.n

Build 2.2. . .

Sustainment

FDD


FDIOC

B

Risk Reduction



Increment 2

Disposal

Build n.1

OT&EBuild n.n

Build n.2. . .

Sustainment

FDD


FDIOC

B

Risk Reduction



Increment n

= Milestone Decision

= Decision Point

Legend

Left: .5Right: 1.75

Top: .2Bottom: .7

Development RFP

Release Decision

Development RFPRelease Decision


Hybrid Program A (Hardware Dominant)

11

• … a model depicting how a major weapons system combines hardware development as the basic structure

with a software intensive development that is occurring simultaneously with the hardware development program

• In a hardware intensive development, the design, fabrication, and testing of physical prototypes may determine

overall schedule, decision points, and milestones, but software development will often dictate the pace of

program execution and must be tightly integrated and coordinated with hardware development decision points

• … software development should be organized into a series of testable software builds

• These builds should lead up to the full capability needed to satisfy program requirements and Initial Operational

Capability (IOC). Software builds should be structured so that the timing of content delivery is synchronized

with the need for integration, developmental and operational testing in hardware prototypes

• … Milestone B decision to enter EMD and the Milestone C decision to enter Production and Deployment should

include software functional capability development maturity criteria as well as demonstrated technical

performance exit criteria

BA C

FRP

FOC



Risk Reduction



Decision


Disposal

IOC

Build 1.1

Build 1.2

Build 1.3

Build 1.4

Build 0.1

Risk

Reduction


CDD Validation

Build 1.5Build 2.1

Integration

OT&E

LRIP

Model: Hybrid-A

Build 3.1

Build 3.2*


Sustainment

Right: .1

Top: .2

Bottom: 1.1


Development RFP

Release Decision

Hybrid Program B (Software Dominant)

12

• … depicts how a software intensive product development can include a mix of incrementally fielded

software products or releases that include intermediate software builds

• Risk Management in Hybrid Models:

• Highly integrated complex software and hardware development poses special risks to program

cost and schedule performance.

• Technical, cost, and schedule risks associated with hardware and software development must be

managed throughout the program’s life cycle and will be a topic of special interest at all decision

points and milestones.

BA

FDD



Decision

Build 1.1.1

Build 1.0.1

RiskReduction

CDD Validation

OT&E

Build 1.1.2

Sustainment

FD

IOC

Disposal

Build 2.1.1

OT&E

Build 2.1.2

Sustainment

FDD FDIOC

B

Risk Reduction

Increment 2



Operations & SupportTechnology Maturation &

RiskReduction

Build 1.1.3

Build 1.2

Integration

LimitedDeployment (LD)

Build 2.1.3

C

Build 1.3.1

Build 1.3.2*



Operations & SupportTechnology Maturation &

RiskReduction

Build 2.2

Integration

C

LD

Build 2.3.1

Build 2.3.2


Left: .6.3

Right: 1.7

Top: .2

Bottom: 1.3


Development RFP

Release Decision


Model 4: Accelerated Acquisition Program

13

• … is a model that applies when schedule considerations dominate over cost and technical risk

considerations

• This model compresses or eliminates phases of the process and accepts the potential for

inefficiencies in order to achieve a deployed capability on a compressed schedule

• The model shows one example of tailoring for accelerated acquisition and many others are possible

• For products that must be developed and acquired as quickly as possible, usually motivated by a

potential adversary achieving technological surprise, and featuring a greater acceptance of program

risk

A/B

Materiel SolutionAnalysis

Concurrent Technology Maturation, Risk Reduction

and Development


Decision

PreliminaryDesignReview

ConcurrentProduction and

Deployment


C

FOCIOC

Sustainment Disposal


Left: .6Right: .8

Top: 0Bottom: 2

OT&E

14

Describes 5 Overarching Policies That Govern

All DoD Acquisition Programs:

» Flexibility. No one best way to structure a program

» Responsiveness. Integration of advanced technology

at earliest time; time-phased requirements; evolutionary

strategies

» Innovation. Adopt initiatives and practices that reduce

cycle time and cost, and encourage teamwork

» Discipline. IAW statute/regulations; identify program

goals in terms of cost/schedule/performance parameters

» Streamlined and Effective Management. Decentralize

responsibility; maximize credibility in cost/schedule/

performance reporting

DoD Directive 5000.01, May 2003

Certified Current as of November 20, 2007

The Defense Acquisition System

15

DoD Instruction 5000.02 January 7, 2015Operation of the Defense Acquisition System

• Provides mandatory procedures for all Defense Acquisition

Programs, to Include acquisition of services. Some

requirements apply only to Major Defense Acquisition Programs

and Major Automated Information Systems

• Designates milestones and phases making up the acquisition

management system and defines ACAT Levels

• Decrease emphasis on “rules” and increase emphasis on

process intent and thoughtful program planning

• Provide program structures and procedures tailored to the

dominant characteristics of the product being acquired and to

unique program circumstances, e.g., risk and urgency

• Enhance the discussion of program management responsibility

and key supporting disciplines

• Institutionalize changes to statute and policy since the last

issuance of DoD Instruction 5000.02

16

Capabilities-BasedAssessment

The Defense Acquisition Management

System Relationship to JCIDS

Acquisition ProcessJCIDS

StrategicGuidance

Joint Concepts

Technology Opportunities & Resources

User Needs

OSD/JCS COCOMFCB

A CB

Technology Maturation & RR.



CDDDraftCDD

MDD


CPD

O&SICD

PPBE

DAMSJCIDS

“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.”

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.


DRFPRD


CDD-V

CDDICD Draft

CDD

Operations & SupportMateriel

DevelopmentDecision

IOC

FRP

Decision

Sustainment

Disposal

FOC


PDR CDR

Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD)

Capability DevelopmentDocument (CDD)

Capability Production Document (CPD)

RELATIONSHIP TO JCIDS

DRAFT CDD

CPD

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

PMT352 BBPi Brief 4-23-12

Better Buying Power Initiatives

Better Buying Power Gateway: https://dap.dau.mil/bbp

Better Buying Power Community of Practice: https://acc.dau.mil/bbp

https://dap.dau.mil/bbp

https://acc.dau.mil/bbp



19

Why are We Here?

• Schedule Delays

• Decline of Economy

• Budget Overruns

• Production Cost increasing

for the same item over time

• Over 51% of the DoD budget

is Acquisition of Services

Source: Deloitte A&D Study, “Can we afford our own future?”, December 2008

• Examination of programs exposed large sole source activity (vendor lock)

and poor examples of real competition

• Small Business was not constructively engaged

• Programs took too long to get to Milestones

• No clear explanation of the value of many of the reports AT&L had to sign

• Requirements being implemented without consideration of cost or

affordabilityWe are Just Paying Too

Much

20

What and Why

AT&L issues guidance on the use of Best Practices that

would:

- Deliver the capability we need for the dollars we have

- Better buying power for the warfighter and taxpayer

- Restore Affordability to defense goods and services

- Improve defense industry productivity

- Maintain a vibrant and financially healthy defense industry

- Remove government impediments to leanness

- Avoid program turbulence

- Develop our Acquisition Workforce

21

Better Buying Power 3.0

http://bbp.dau.mil/

http://bbp.dau.mil/

22

Better Buying Power 3.0A Guide to Help You Think

• BBP 3.0 reflects the Department of Defense’s commitment to continuous

improvement – part of our culture – AND now INNOVATION

• Overarching acquisition principles underlie BBP and all that we do– Think

– People Count

– Start With the Basics

– Streamline Decisions

• BBP encompasses initiatives organized into EIGHT focus areas– Achieve Affordable Programs

– Control Costs throughout the Product Lifecycle

– Incentivize Productivity & Innovation in Industry

and Government

– Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy

– Incentivize Innovation in Industry & Government

– Promote Effective Competition

– Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services

– Improve the Professionalism of the Total

Acquisition Workforce

23

Overarching Acquisition PrinciplesStars to Steer By

• Think– Apply our education, training and experience

– Creative, informed, thorough

– Do not default to perceived ‘school solutions’

• People Count – Professional preparation to think well

– Policies/processes of little use without acquisition professionals trained & supported

– People and professionalism - Acquisition leaders drive results more than any policy

• Start with the Basics – Acquisition Fundamentals Work– Effective incentives to industry – especially competitive pressures

– Understand and manage technical risk

– Demonstrated progress before major commitments

– Getting big early decisions right – particularly requirement tradeoffs

– Using the right contract type for the job

• Streamline decisions– Streamline processes/oversight to provide value added

– Directing differences of opinion to the appropriate decision makers

– Allow managers to be more effective by protecting their most precious resource - time

These principles have always been valuable…and will increase in value as our

acquisition environment becomes more volatile

24

Better Buying Power 3.0

Achieve Affordable Programs• Continue to set and enforce affordability caps

Achieve Dominant Capabilities While Controlling Lifecycle Costs• Strengthen and expand “should cost” based cost management• Build stronger partnerships between the acquisition,

requirements, and intelligence communities • Anticipate and plan for responsive and emerging threats• Institutionalize stronger DoD level Long Range R&D Planning

Incentivize Productivity in Industry and Government• Align profitability more tightly with Department goals• Employ appropriate contract types, but increase the use of

incentive type contracts • Expand the superior supplier incentive program across DoD• Increase effective use of Performance-Based Logistics• Remove barriers to commercial technology utilization• Improve the return on investment in DoD laboratories• Increase the productivity of IR&D and CR&D

Incentivize Innovation in Industry and Government• Increase the use of prototyping and experimentation• Emphasize technology insertion and refresh in program planning• Use Modular Open Systems Architecture to stimulate innovation• Increase the return on Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)• Provide draft technical requirements to industry early and involve

industry in funded concept definition to support requirements definition

• Provide clear “best value” definitions so industry can propose and DoD can choose wisely

Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy• Emphasize Acquisition Executive, Program Executive

Officer, and Program Manager responsibility, authority, and accountability

• Reduce cycle times while ensuring sound investments• Streamline documentation requirements and staff

reviews

Promote Effective Competition• Create and maintain competitive environments• Improve technology search and outreach in global

markets

Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services• Increase small business participation, including

through more effective use of market research • Strengthen contract management outside the normal

acquisition chain • Improve requirements definition• Improve the effectiveness and productivity of

contracted engineering and technical services

Improve the Professionalism of the Total Acquisition Workforce

• Establish higher standards for key leadership positions• Establish stronger professional qualification

requirements for all acquisition specialties • Strengthen organic engineering capabilities • Ensure the DoD leadership for development programs

is technically qualified to manage R&D activities • Improve our leaders’ ability to understand and mitigate

technical risk• Increase DoD support for Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education

Achieving Dominant Capabilities through Technical Excellence and Innovation

Ideas retained from BBP 2.0New in BBP 3.0

Continue Strengthening Our Culture of: Cost Consciousness, Professionalism, and Technical Excellence

19 Sep 14

25

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting and

Execution

Joint Capabilities

Integration and

Development

System (JCIDS)

Defense

Acquisition

System




JOINT CAPABILITIES INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM

• Outputs of the JCIDS process are

used to:– Facilitate Doctrine, Organization, Training,

Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel,

Facilities, and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) changes

– Drive the Defense Acquisition System (DAS)

– Inform the Planning, Programming, Budgeting,

and Execution (PPBE) processes

NEEDS

GAPS SOLUTIONS

Existing

Guidance

The problems

and the risks

What we need

for the

mission

What should we

do about it?

Requirement Identification

and Document Generation

Capability requirements and capability

gaps identified through CBAs and other

studies are traceable to an organization’s

assigned roles and missions,

Services, Combatant Commands, and other DOD

Components conduct Capabilities Based

Assessments (CBAs) or other studies to assess

capability requirements and associated capability

gaps and risks.

ICDDCR

Capability requirements which have significant capability gaps typically lead to an ICD

The operational level MOE requirements in the ICD become performance

characteristics for a weapon system which may then become

KPPs and KSAs in the CDD

DOTmLPF-P Change Request (DCR)

• Documents the intent to address a requirement and capability gap with a non-

materiel solution,

• Recommends changes to existing capabilities of the Joint force in one or more

of the DOTmLPF-P areas.

JCIDS Documents

Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) - Captures the results of the CBA.

• Defines capability gaps in terms of the functional area, the relevant range of

military operations, and the timeline under consideration.

• Developed by the joint warfighter, the joint staff, or other agencies or sponsors.

• Supports the MDD, the AoA, the TDS, MSA, and the next Milestone Decision

• ICDs do not specify a preferred solution

• An ICD is the predecessor to a Capability Development Document (CDD)

Capability Development Document (CDD)

• Identifies performance parameters

• Identifies system thresholds and objectives

• Applies to a single increment of the program's development

• Updated or rewritten for subsequent increments

• Prepared during the Technology Development Phase for use at

Milestone B

JCIDS Documents

Capability Production Document (CPD)

• Prepared in EMD to support P&D

• Supports the MS C decision (must be validated and approved < MS C)

• Identifies production attributes for a single increment of a program

• Rewritten for each increment in an evolutionary acquisition program

• Contains “refined” KPPs, performance attributes, and cost / engineering

estimates

Urgent Operational Needs (UON)

• Documents capability requirements which if left unfulfilled, would result in

capability gaps leading to unacceptable loss of life or critical mission

failure

• Expedited staffing and validation procedures are used to facilitate timely

validation and initiation of rapid acquisition efforts.

• Three types of UONs

• Component UONs: applicable to only one DOD Component

• Joint UONs (JUONs): UONs affecting two or more DOD

Components. Driven by ongoing contingency operations.

• Joint Emerging Operational Needs (JEONS): UONs affecting two or

more DOD Components and driven by anticipated contingency

operations.

JCIDS Documents

DoD DSS, chart 31Version 3.1, 4-23-12

“Capability Development

Document” (CDD)Threshold

Objective

KPP 1

KPP 2

KPP 3

KPP 4

“Capability Production Document” (CPD)

ThresholdObjective

KPP 1

KPP 2

KPP 3

KPP 4

Introduces KPPs

Cost estimates

Guides EMD phase by

defining measurable &

testable capabilities

Refines KPPs and

performance attributes, as

necessary

Refines Cost & Engineer

estimates

Guides Production and

Deployment phase

“Initial Capabilities

Document” (ICD)

No Key Performance

Parameters

Defines capability gap

in terms of the

functional area, the

relevant range of

military operations

& timeframe

Describes capability

gaps

Guides MSA and TD

phases

JCIDS Documents

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

JO TNI

S TA FFCH IE FS OF

• Deliberate Requirements– Service, CCMD or Agency Driven

– Traditional route for capabilities that require

significant tech development and/or are not

urgent or compelling in nature

• Emergent Requirements– CCMD Driven

– Supports accelerated acquisition of capabilities

needed for an anticipated or pending

contingency operation

– VCJCS verifies, JCB or JROC validates

• Urgent Requirements– CCMD Driven

– Urgent and compelling to prevent loss of life

and/or mission failure during current operations

– Require little tech development and can be

resolved in less than two years

– DDR validates

“Keep right, except to pass”

D

E

L

I

B

E

R

A

T

E

E

M

E

R

G

E

N

T

U

R

G

E

N

T

0 – 2

YRS

0+ to

5

YRS

CONFLICT

LANE

ONLY

POTENTIAL

CONFLICT

LANE

2-6+

YRS

Three Requirements “Lanes”

32

33

Planning,

Programming,

Budgeting and

Execution

Joint Capabilities

Integration and

Development

System (JCIDS)

Defense

Acquisition

System




DoD DSS, chart 34Version 3.1, 4-23-12

PPBE Phases – Synopsis

• Planning – Review threat / assess capabilities

– Develop guidance

• Programming – Turn guidance into achievable and affordable

packages / programs

• Budgeting – Scrub budget year

– Prepare defensible budget

– First year of FYDP

• Execution– Measure performance against plan

– Assess effectiveness of resource allocations

“Will Cost” vs “Should Cost”USD (AT&L) and USD(C) 22 Apr 11 Memo

• Will Cost

• Used for programming and budgeting

• Used for acquisition program baselines (APBs)

• Used for all reporting requirements external to DoD

• Should Cost

• Scrutinize every element of govt and contractor costs

• 3 ways to develop should cost estimates:

• Bottoms –Up estimate

• Determine specific discrete and measurable items

• Use competitive contracting and contract negotiations to

identify should cost savings (old FAR definition)

• Model Programs

• Air Force : JSF, Global Hawk, SBIRS, EELV, AEHF

• Army: Joint Air Ground Missile, UH-60M, GCV, Paladin Product

Improvement (PIP), NETT Warrior

• Navy: JSF, E-2D, Presidential Helo, LCS, Ohio Replacement Program35

Future Years Defense Program

(FYDP)

• Computer database maintained by CAPE

• Contains approved force structure and resources for all Defense Programs

• Updated two times per annual PPBE cycle:– Program Objectives Memorandum/Budget Estimate Submission

(POM/BES) – July

– President’s Budget (PB) - February

• Reflects PY, CY, BY, + 4 Out-Years

3 additional years for force structure only

15 16 17 18 19 1413

36

Resource Allocation Process

2016 07 28

FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

CY 16 CY 17 CY 18 CY 19

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

Congress

President /

OMB

OSD /

Joint Staff

Services /

Components

BES Budget Estimate Submission

CRA Continuing Resolution Authority

CY Calendar Year

FY Fiscal Year

FYDP Future Years Defense Program

OMB Office of Management & Budget

PBD

CRA

OMB

Adj

FY 19 Execution

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PB President’s Budget

PBD Program Budget Decision

PDM Program Decision Memoranda

POM Program Objective Memorandum

Appropriations

Act

FY 19-23 POM /

FY 19 BES Build

FY 19 Enactment

* FYDP Updated† Congressional Justification

Documentation Updated

POM*†

FY 19 Program,

Budget, Execution

Review

BES*†

PB * †

PDM

Resource Allocation Process

2016 07 28

FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20

CY 16 CY 17 CY 18 CY 19

J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

Congress

President /

OMB

OSD /

Joint Staff

Services /

Components

BES Budget Estimate Submission

CRA Continuing Resolution Authority

CY Calendar Year

FY Fiscal Year

FYDP Future Years Defense Program

OMB Office of Management & Budget

PBD

CRA

OMB

Adj

FY 19 Execution

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PB President’s Budget

PBD Program Budget Decision

PDM Program Decision Memoranda

POM Program Objective Memorandum

Appropriations

Act

PBD

CRA

OMB

Adj

FY 18 Execution

Appropriations

Act PB * †

CRAFY 17 Enactment

FY 17 Execution

Appropriations

Act

FY 19-23 POM /

FY 19 BES Build

FY 18 Program,

Budget, Execution

Review

FY 18 Enactment FY 19 Enactment

FY 16 Execution

PBD

CRA

OMB

Adj

FY 20

Execution

Appropriations

Act

FY 20 Enactment

PBD

OMB

Adj

FY 21-25 POM /

FY 21 BES Build

FY 22-

FY 22 BES Build FY 20-24 POM /

FY 20 BES Build

* FYDP Updated† Congressional Justification

Documentation Updated

FY 21 Program,

Budget, Execution

Review

FY 20 Program,

Budget, Execution

Review

POM*†

FY 19 Program,

Budget, Execution

Review

BES*†BES*† BES*† BES*†

PB * † PB * † PB * † PB * †

POM*† POM*†POM*†PDM PDM PDM

FY 18-22 POM /

FY 18 BES Build

PDM

DOD Acquisition Policy Summary

• The acquisition process is event driven vs PPBE

which is calendar driven vs JCIDS which is

threat/technology driven

• Better Buying Power is a collection of best practices

• JCIDS has 3 pathways for development

• PPBE requires 2-year lead time to get a new start in

the budget

• Bringing all three systems together seamlessly and

efficiently is NOT easy

• Not mentioned here specifically is S&T, but that 4th

dimension complicates this subject further

39

Questions?

V/R

Wallace J. "Wally" Tubell Jr.

Professor of Systems Engineering and Test

Defense Acquisition University-South

Engineering and Technology Dept.

7115 Old Madison Pike

Huntsville, AL 35806

Phone: 256-922-8150 Fax: 256‐922-6418

[email protected]

40