Appendix A
Brief Overview of the Defense Acquisition System for Information Technology

THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The Defense Acquisition Management System (DAMS), defined in DOD Instruction 5000.2, specifies a single framework to address both information technology (IT) systems (termed “automated information systems” [AISs] in DOD regulations) and weapon systems. The milestone decision process defined in the instruction and applied to the acquisition of both weapon systems and information technology is depicted in Figure A.1.

DODI 5000.2 allows for differentiation of the prescribed acquisition process based on the underlying technological maturity. It identifies evolutionary acquisition as the “preferred strategy for the rapid acquisition of mature technology” and notes that in an evolutionary acquisition strategy, close cooperation is required between users, testers, and developers. The DOD 5000.2 milestone decision process flow for evolutionary acquisition is shown in Figure A.2. It further states that “MDAs [milestone decision authorities] may tailor regulatory program information to fit the particular conditions of an individual program.” Implicit in this statement is that regulatory program information must still be provided, since the MDAs may tailor only the instruction implementation.

Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System

The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Require-



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 103
Appendix A Brief Overview of the Defense Acquisition System for Information Technology THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SySTEM The Defense Acquisition Management System (DAMS), defined in DOD Instruction 5000.2, specifies a single framework to address both information technology (IT) systems (termed “automated information systems” [AISs] in DOD regulations) and weapon systems. The milestone decision process defined in the instruction and applied to the acquisi- tion of both weapon systems and information technology is depicted in Figure A.1. DODI 5000.2 allows for differentiation of the prescribed acquisition process based on the underlying technological maturity. It identifies evo - lutionary acquisition as the “preferred strategy for the rapid acquisition of mature technology” and notes that in an evolutionary acquisition strategy, close cooperation is required between users, testers, and developers. The DOD 5000.2 milestone decision process flow for evolutionary acquisition is shown in Figure A.2. It further states that “MDAs [milestone decision authorities] may tailor regulatory program information to fit the particu - lar conditions of an individual program.” Implicit in this statement is that regulatory program information must still be provided, since the MDAs may tailor only the instruction implementation. Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System The Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Joint Require- 0

OCR for page 103
0 ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE ACQUISITION OF IT IN THE DOD FIGURE A.1 The milestone decision governance and oversight process of the Defense Acquisition Management Figureapplied to both weapon systems and DISA System A.1.eps automated information systems. bitmap, uneditable ments Oversight Council (JROC) in identifying, assessing, and prioritiz - ing joint military capability needs as required by law. The capabilities are identified by analyzing what is required across all functional areas to accomplish the mission. The JROC recognizes that the same level of oversight is not required for all information systems. Therefore, information systems are divided into four categories with appropriate oversight for each: • Information systems with a post-Milestone B developmental cost of less than $15 million are not subject to joint oversight or approval under the JCIDS process. The sponsor manages the requirements, approves the JCIDS documents, and complies with appropriate acquisi- tion requirements. • Information systems that are defense business systems, regardless of cost, are to comply with the process defined by the Defense Business Systems Management Committee. These systems will employ a business case document using the business capability life-cycle process in lieu of an Initial Capabilities Document/Capabilities Development Document (ICD/CDD) to justify the need for a solution. In those cases where the JCIDS gatekeeper, on the advice of the lead functional capabilities board (FCB), determines that joint oversight of the business system is required, the business case document will be reviewed and validated in lieu of the appropriate JCIDS documents. • Information systems that are an integral part of a weapon or weapon system and enable weapon capabilities are considered to be part

OCR for page 103
FIGURE A.2 The milestone decision governance and oversight process of the Defense Acquisition System adapted for evolution - DISA Figure A.2.eps ary acquisition. landscape bitmap, uneditable 0

OCR for page 103
0 ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE ACQUISITION OF IT IN THE DOD of the weapon system program and do not require separate JCIDS docu- ments or oversight. • Information systems that provide capabilities through software development and integration with commercial off-the-shelf hardware require an ICD for initiation of new-capability development. The CDD will support the development and fielding process. A CPD is not required unless the program is going through a formal Milestone C decision and the MDA requires it. The Joint Staff Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment/ Requirements Management Division (J-8/RMD) and/or the Lead FCB will make a determination if it is not clear which definition applies to a particular information system.1 The JCIDS processes, as illustrated in Figure A.3, overlay and support the Defense Acquisition Management System. The JROC decision tree and membership are illustrated in Figure A.4. Recently, the JCIDS process for information technology systems was changed to reflect the evolving nature of requirements for IT systems. This new JCIDS policy2 recognizes the need for the JROC to focus on top-level requirements at the beginning of a program and delegates refinement of subsequent requirements to a lower-level flag-officer-level body. Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System The purpose of the PPBES is to allocate resources within the DOD. It is important for program managers and their staffs to be aware of the nature and timing of each of the events in the PPBE process, since they may be called on to provide critical information that could be important to program funding and success. In the PPBE process, the Secretary of Defense establishes policies, strategy, and prioritized goals for the DOE that are subsequently used to guide resource allocation decisions that balance the guidance with fiscal constraints. The PPBE process consists of four distinct but overlapping phases: • Planning. The planning phase of PPBE, which is a collaborative effort by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff, begins with a resource-informed articulation of national defense policies and military strategy known as the Strategic Planning Guidance. 1 CJCSI 3170.01G, Enclosure B, 2009. 2 Laura Knight, Net-Enable Command Capability briefing, DISA, October 28, 2008.

OCR for page 103
FIGURE A.3 JCIDS process and acquisition decisions. SOURCE: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3170.01G, En - closure A, March 2009. DISA Figure A.3.eps landscape bitmap, uneditable 0

OCR for page 103
0 JROC DECISION CHAIN JROC MEMBERSHIP FINAL DECISION AUTHORIT Y Chair: VCJCS Council Members: ADVICE TO SECDEF CJCS CJCS Vice Chief of Staff, Army RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL / JROC JROC TOP LEVEL GUIDANCE Vice Chief of Naval Operations ISSUE DEVELOPMENT Vice Chief of Staff, Air Force JCB Assistant Commandant of the INITIAL ISSUE REVIEW FCB Marine Corps ANALYTIC FOUNDATION FCB WG JROC : Joint Requirements Oversight Council COCOMs have a standing invitation to JCB: Joint Capabilities Board attend all JROC sessions FCB: Fu nctional Capabilities Board FCB WG : Fu nctional Capabilities Board Working Group FIGURE A.4 JROC decision tree and membership. NOTE: Functional capability boards (FCBs) exist for command and control, bat - tlespace awareness, logistics, force support, force protection, igure application, and network-centric operations, focused logistics, DISA Fforce A.4.eps force management, and joint training. FCBs are led by general-officer-level JCS staff. Membership consists of O6-level representa - landscape tion of the Services, the Combatant Commands, OSD(AT&)L, OSD(I), ASD(NII)/DOD CIO, Director of PA&E, DIA, and the specific FCB Executive Secretary. SOURCE: Pat Wills, JCIDS Brief, Defense Acquisition University, January 2009, available at https://acc. dau.mil, accessed June 2009.

OCR for page 103
0 APPENDIX A • Programming. The programming phase begins with the development of a program objective memorandum (POM) by each DOD component. • Budgeting. The budgeting phase of PPBE occurs concurrently with the programming phase; each DOD component submits its proposed budget estimate simultaneously with its POM. • Execution. The execution review occurs simultaneously with the program and budget reviews. The purpose of the execution review is to provide feedback to the senior leadership concerning the effectiveness of current and prior resource allocations.3 The PPBES, as currently implemented, follows a biennial cycle to reduce the number and amount of budget artifacts provided and reviewed by DOD components and OSD/JCS, respectively, on an annual basis. New initiatives, theoretically, can be started in any budget year; however, the activities required in an “off” year are based on exception processing, as opposed to the normal budget process. However, even during an “on” year, the window to successfully present and argue for a new initia- tive or a major change in an initiative is formally from mid-August to mid-October. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGy AND THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT SySTEM Although some specific requirements of DOD acquisition regulations apply only to weapon system programs or to AIS programs, the same overall program structure template and milestone decision process are applied to both. A key facet of the DAMS is a series of thresholds that establish the acquisition category (ACAT) of an acquisition program, and with that determination also establish the MDA responsible for oversight of the acquisition program. The largest or most highly visible programs are designated as major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) or major automated information system (MAIS) programs, and the MDA for them is assigned to the Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE), Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD AT&L), or to the Service or component acquisition executives within the military Ser- vices or defense agencies. The criterion that governs the assignment to specific acquisition categories is codified in Title 10 U.S.C. Chapter 144 and 144A and is provided in DOD 50004 as shown in Table A.1. The expenditure-level 3 Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Defense Acquisition Guidebook, DAU, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2009. 4 DODI 5000.2, 2008.

OCR for page 103
TABLE A.1 Criteria for Acquisition Category Designation 0 Acquisition Category Reason for ACAT Designation Decision Authority ACAT I ACAT ID: • MDAP (section 2430 of Reference (k)) o Dollar value: estimated by the USD(AT&L) to require an eventual USD(AT&L) total expenditure for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) of more than $365 million in fiscal year (FY) 2000 constant ACAT IC: Head of the DOD dollars or, for procurement, of more than $2.190 billion in FY 2000 Component or, if delegated, the CAE constant dollars (not further delegable) o MDA designation • MDA designation as special interest ACAT IA1,2 ACAT IAM: • MAIS (Chapter 144A of title 10 of U.S.C. (Reference (k)): A DOD acquisition program for an Automated Information System3 (either as a USD(AT&L) or designee product or a service) that is either: o Designated by the MDA as a MAIS; or ACAT IAC: Head of the DOD o Estimated to exceed: Component or, if delegated, the CAE — $32 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, (not further delegable) for all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related to the AIS definition, design, development, and deployment, and incurred in any single fiscal year; or — $126 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, for all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related to the AIS definition, design, development, and deployment, and incurred from the beginning of the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase through deployment at all sites; or — $378 million in FY 2000 constant dollars for all expenditures, for all increments, regardless of the appropriation or fund source, directly related to the AIS definition, design, development, deployment, operations and maintenance, and incurred from the beginning of the Materiel Solution Analysis Phase through sustainment for the estimated useful life of the system. • MDA designation as special interest

OCR for page 103
ACAT II CAE or the individual designated by • Does not meet criteria for ACAT I the CAE4 • Major system o Dollar value: estimated by the DOD Component Head to require an eventual total expenditure for RDT&E of more than $140 million in FY 2000 constant dollars, or for procurement of more than $660 million in FY 2000 constant dollars (section 2302d of Reference (k)) o MDA designation4 (paragraph (5) of section 2302 of Reference (k)) ACAT III Designated by the CAE4 • Does not meet criteria for ACAT II or above • AIS that is not a MAIS 1In some cases, an ACAT IA program, as defined above, also meets the definition of an MDAP. The USD(AT&L) shall be the MDA for such programs unless delegated to a DOD Component. The statutory requirements that apply to MDAPs and MAIS shall apply to such programs. 2The MDA (either the USD(AT&L) or, if delegated, the ASD(NII)/DOD CIO or another designee) shall designate MAIS programs as ACAT IAM or ACAT IAC. MAIS programs shall not be designated as ACAT II. 3Automated Information System: A system of computer hardware, computer software, data, or telecommunications that performs tasks such as collecting, processing, storing, transmitting, and displaying information. Excluded are computer resources, both hardware and software, that are: a. an integral part of a weapon or weapon system; b. used for highly sensitive classified programs (as determined by the Secretary of Defense); c. used for other highly sensitive information technology programs (as determined by ASD(NII)/DOD CIO); or d. determined by the USD(AT&L) or designee to be better overseen as a non-AIS program (e.g., a program with a low ratio of RDT&E funding to total program acquisition costs or that requires significant hardware development). 4As delegated by the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Military Department. SOURCE: DODI 5000.2. 

OCR for page 103
 ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE ACQUISITION OF IT IN THE DOD thresholds for MAIS programs are significantly lower than they are for MDAP programs, subjecting more AIS programs to increased oversight and governance from the highest levels of the DOD. In fact, the overall program size thresholds for the ACAT IAM designation (where the M denotes a MAIS ACAT I program) for AIS programs are smaller than the corresponding ACAT II for non-AIS programs, and there is no ACAT II for AIS programs. As a consequence of these differences in program threshold levels for oversight between MAIS programs and MDAP programs, the former are subjected to the same level of intensive management as are the ACAT 1D weapon systems programs. This level of management has resulted in the ponderous oversight of ACAT IAM IT programs that are funded at much lower levels. Specifically, an IT program funded at $32 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDTE) in any fiscal year gets the same level of oversight as a weapon system program funded at $365 million or more over its RDTE phase. A more extreme metric is that an IT program funded with a total life-cycle cost (including operation and maintenance) of $378 million receives the same level of oversight as a weapon system program funded at $2.190 billion in procurement funding. Moreover, the two-tier acquisition category definitions for IT programs appear to drive more systems into the “major” category (and thus over- sight by the Office of the Secretary of Defense) than do the weapon system acquisition category definitions, which are three-tiered. The governance structure that ultimately brings recommendations forward to the MDA for MDAP or MAIS programs varies as a function of the types of programs, but in virtually every case it is a four-tier process with the program management office (PMO) at the bottom responsible for preparing for a milestone decision review; a collection of integrated prod- uct teams (IPTs) with an overarching integrated product team (OIPT) to work with the PMO and provide review and oversight in preparation for a milestone decision review; a formal decision body with a group such as the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) or Information Technology Acqui- sition Board (ITAB) to advise the MDA; and the MDA as the responsible party in making the milestone decision at each of the key Milestone A, B, and C decision points identified in Figures A.1 and A.2. This structure is depicted for various types of programs in Figure A.5. The formal decision forums are key bodies in this oversight and gov- ernance process. It is instructive to examine their composition. DAB board members and advisors are listed in Table A.2.5 Although some specific 5 Defense Acquisition University (DAU), Defense Acquisition Guidebook, DAU, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., 2009.

OCR for page 103
 APPENDIX A FIGURE A.5 Governance and oversight process flows for various types of pro- DISA Figure A.5.eps grams. SOURCE: Information Technology Acquisition briefing provided by DASD (C3ISR & IT Acquisition), February 25, uneditable bitmap, 2009. TABLE A.2 Defense Acquisition Board Membership and Advisors for MDAP Program Oversight DAB Members DAB Advisors Under Secretary of Defense Principal Deputy USD(AT&L) (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) Director, Defense Research & Engineering Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) OIPT Leader(s) Under Secretary of Defense Chairman, Cost Analysis Improvement (Intelligence) Group Assistant Secretary of Defense Director, Defense Procurement and for Networks and Information Acquisition Policy Integration/DOD CIO Director, Operational Test & Program Executive Officer Evaluation Chairman, Program Analysis and Program Manager Evaluation Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and the Air Force (Logistics & Material Readiness) Director, Acquisition Resources & DOD General Counsel Analysis Director, Force Structure (J8) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) DOD Component Acquisition Executives Commander, United States Joint Forces Command Chair, Functional Capabilities Board(s)

OCR for page 103
 ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE ACQUISITION OF IT IN THE DOD TABLE A.3 Information Technology Acquisition Board Membership and Advisors for MAIS Program Oversight ITAB Members ITAB Advisors Under Secretary of Defense Under Secretary of Defense (Policy) (Comptroller) Under Secretary of Defense (P&R) Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) Deputy DOD Chief Information Domain Owner Officer Director, Operational Test & Component CIOs Evaluation Deputy DOD Chief Information Director, Defense Intelligence Agency Officer Director, Operational Test & Director, Cost Analysis Improvement Evaluation Group Chairman, Program Analysis and Representatives of the Joint Staff Evaluation Component Acquisition Executives of Director, Defense Procurement and the Army, Navy, and Air Force Acquisition Policy DOD Component User Director, International Cooperation Representatives Director, Defense Procurement and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Acquisition Policy (Logistics and Materiel Readiness) IT OIPT Lead Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) Program Executive Officer(s) Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis Program Manager(s) Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) Cognizant OSD Principal Staff Assistant(s) Director, Force Structure (J8) DOD General Counsel Deputy Director, Developmental Test & Evaluation positions and levels of the participants differ, the ITAB has a very similar overall composition, as shown in Table A.3. Operational test and evaluation (OT&E) to determine the effective - ness and suitability of systems is also a key consideration of the DAMS. Test and evaluation artifacts ranging from strategy documents to final test reports are required for every milestone review. OT&E results are a key factor in the limited-rate initial production and full-rate production deci - sions. (For software-intensive programs with no production components, Milestone C is a deployment decision.) Prior to achieving a Milestone C production or deployment decision, the system must undergo OT&E under realistic conditions to determine if the threshold requirements have

OCR for page 103
 APPENDIX A been met and critical operational issues have been satisfied. These thresh- old requirements come from the approved capabilities development doc- ument developed in the JCIDS process. For AIS programs, additional specialized testing is integrated into the OT&E process. This includes interoperability testing and network-ready certification conducted by the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC), and information assurance certification and accreditation testing conducted by the designated accred- iting authority.6 For evolutionary programs following the model of Figure A.2, this testing and certification must occur for every evolutionary spiral undertaken by the program. In short, the DAMS is a complex system of governance and oversight. For any MDAP or MAIS program, preparing for and successfully con- ducting the series of milestone reviews necessary to deploy capability to end users is a major undertaking. 6 DODI 8510.01, 2007.