AiDA provides the acquisition community with a digitized and interactive version of DODI to facilitate easier and faster navigation of this policy. Some of the hyperlinked pages provide a more detailed explanation of key acquisition concepts e. Assigns, reinforces, and prescribes procedures for acquisition responsibilities related to cybersecurity in the Defense Acquisition System. Incorporates and cancels Directive-type Memorandum Reference cl. POLICY The overarching management principles and mandatory policies that govern the Defense Acquisition SystemThe Defense Acquisition System is an event-based process where acquisition programs proceed through a series of milestone reviews and other decision points that may authorize entry into a significant new program phase. Details of the reviews, decision points, and program phases are found in Enclosure 2 of DoD Instruction
|Published (Last):||19 July 2011|
|PDF File Size:||7.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.56 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Therefore, no redline text appears in this version of DoDI This instruction: 1. Authorizes Milestone Decision Authorities MDAs to tailor the regulatory requirements and acquisition procedures in this instruction to more efficiently achieve program objectives, consistent with statutory requirements and Reference a. Assigns, reinforces, and prescribes procedures for acquisition responsibilities related to cybersecurity in the Defense Acquisition System. Incorporates and cancels Directive-type Memorandum Reference cl.
The overarching management principles and mandatory policies that govern the Defense Acquisition System are described in Reference a. This instruction provides the detailed procedures that guide the operation of the system. The MDA will establish procedures for assigned programs using this instruction as guidance. MDAs should tailor regulatory procedures in the document consistent with sound business practice and the risks associated with the product being acquired. Heads of the DoD Components.
Component-required procedures will not exceed those specified in this instruction. Statutory requirements cannot be waived unless the statute permits. Secretaries of the Military Departments. In addition to the responsibilities described in paragraph 4. The Secretary concerned, in coordination with the Chief of the Military Service fielding the system, will balance resources against priorities and ensure appropriate trade-offs are made among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance throughout the life of the program.
Chiefs of the Military Services. The Chiefs of the Military Services fielding MDAPs will represent the customer and, with the Secretary of the Military Department acquiring the MDAP, balance resources against priorities and ensure that appropriate trade-offs are made among cost, schedule, technical feasibility, and performance throughout the life of the program. The statutes governing defense acquisition programs are complex, and the categories into which a program falls will impact acquisition procedures.
The structure of a DoD acquisition program and the procedures used should be tailored as much as possible to the characteristics of the product being acquired, and to the totality of circumstances associated with the program including operational urgency and risk factors.
Statutory requirements will be complied with, unless waived in accordance with relevant provisions. This waiver authority may not be delegated. Detailed provisions and requirements for this waiver are identified in Table 6 in Enclosure 1 of this instruction.
All defense acquisition programs are designated by an ACAT i. MDAP and MAIS program designations carry the greatest consequences in terms of management level, reporting requirements, and documentation and analysis to support program decisions. Enclosure 1 of this instruction identifies the information requirements associated with all standard program categories or types in tabular form. Table 1 in Enclosure 1 provides specific definitions, funding thresholds, and decision authorities.
These designations are defined in statute and have procedural and policy consequences. 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 following policies will guide decision reviews: 5. Similar procedures will be established at the Component level for use by other MDAs. When an issue cannot be resolved quickly at a lower level, the issue will be submitted to the MDA with complete and objective data necessary to support a decision. Staff members will be provided with the data needed to support the review in accordance with scheduled submission dates established throughout this instruction.
They will work to minimize the overhead burden placed on the DoD Components, PEOs, program managers, and their staffs. The Military Service concerned will address administrative or advisory comments. Similar procedures will be used for DoD Component-level reviews.
Capability requirements may have to be adjusted to conform to technical and fiscal reality. Acquisition programs may have to adjust to changing requirements and funding availability. Budgeted funds may have to be adjusted to make programs executable or to adapt to evolving validated capability requirements and priorities.
Stable capability requirements and funding are important to successful program execution. Those responsible for the three processes at the DoD level and within the DoD Components must work closely together to adapt to changing circumstances as needed, and to identify and resolve issues as early as possible.
Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between the requirements process and the acquisition process. Figure 1. As knowledge and circumstances change, consideration of adjustments or changes may be requested by acquisition, budgeting, or requirements officials.
Configuration Steering Boards CSBs , as described in paragraph 5d5 b in this section, will also be used to periodically review program progress and identify opportunities for adjustment. Within the DoD Components, MDAs will advise the Component budget authorities to ensure that acquisition programs are adequately funded and that program plans are consistent with programmed funding levels.
DoD acquisition managers and staff should focus on the basics of sound acquisition planning, management, and decision making as discussed in this section as their primary responsibility—while also assuring compliance, as appropriate, with the specific requirements found in the tables that follow in Enclosures 1 and 13, and the direction in other applicable enclosures. For reference, a generic product acquisition program would follow the structure depicted in Figure 2. Figure 2 illustrates the sequence of decision events in a generic program, which could be a Defense program or, except for the unique DoD terminology, a commercial product.
Figure 2. Generic Acquisition Phases and Decision Points 5. Need Identification, called the Materiel Development Decision by DoD, is the decision that a new product is needed and that activities to analyze alternative solutions will occur. The decision to commit resources to the development of a product for manufacturing and fielding, called Engineering and Manufacturing Development EMD by DoD, follows completion of any needed technology maturation and risk reduction.
For DoD, the Development RFP Release Decision Point is the point at which plans for the program must be most carefully reviewed to ensure all risks are understood and under control, the program plan is sound, and that the program will be affordable and executable. The point at which the major cost and performance trades have been completed and enough risk reduction has been completed to support a decision to commit to the set of requirements that will be used for preliminary design activities, development, and production subject to reconsideration and refinement as knowledge increases.
The point at which planning for development is complete and a decision can be made to release an RFP for development and possibly initial production to industry. The development decision commits the resources authorizes proceeding to award of the contract s needed to conduct development leading to production and fielding of the product. The decision to enter production follows development and testing. The Initial Production Decision.
The production decision, based primarily on developmental testing results and usually also informed by an operational assessment, commits the resources i. Evidence from testing that the product design is stable is the critical consideration for this decision. The commitment to enter production is very expensive and difficult to reverse.
While these generic decision points and milestones are standard, MDAs have full latitude to tailor programs in the most effective and efficient structure possible, to include eliminating phases and combining or eliminating milestones and decision points, unless constrained by statute.
Paragraph 5d provides more detail about the standard structure, milestones, and decision points as they apply to most defense acquisition programs. Enclosure 1 includes tables of specific requirements for the various statutory and regulatory categories of programs. Enclosures 11 and 13 provide additional information about Information Technology programs described in Enclosure 11 and Urgent Capability Acquisitions described in Enclosure 13 ; cybersecurity is described in Enclosure Defense Business Systems are described in Reference cw.
DoDI Two additional hybrid models combine the features of multiple basic models. Each basic model is tailored to the dominant characteristics of the product being acquired e. The hybrids are described because many products will require combining models, such as a weapons systems development that includes significant software development.
Acquisition programs should use these models as a starting point in structuring a program to acquire a specific product. The models provide baseline approaches.
A specific program should be tailored to the unique character of the product being acquired. All of the models contain requirements and product definition analysis, risk reduction, development, testing, production, deployment, and sustainment phases punctuated by major investment decisions at logical programmatic and contractual decision points.
Progress through the acquisition management system as depicted in any of these models or in a tailored variation depends on obtaining sufficient knowledge about the capability to be provided and risks and costs remaining in the program to support a sound business decision to proceed to the next phase. Figures and brief descriptions are provided for each model.
The figures illustrate the typical sequence of events and activities. A dotted diagonal line and color blending imply overlapping activities. Figure 3 is a 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 paragraph 5c 3 f 1 describes Hybrid Model A.
Figure 3. Model 1: Hardware Intensive Program 5. Figure 4 is a model of a program that is dominated by the need to develop a complex, usually defense unique, software program that will not be fully 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. Several software builds are typically necessary to achieve a deployable capability.
Each build has allocated requirements, resources, and scheduled testing to align dependencies with subsequent builds and to produce testable functionality to ensure that progress is being achieved. The build sequencing should be logically structured to flow the workforce from effort to effort smoothly and efficiently, while reducing overall cost and schedule risk for the program. Figure 4. Figure 5 is a model that has been adopted for many Defense Business Systems. It also applies to upgrades to some command and control systems or weapons systems software where deployment of the full capability will occur in multiple increments as new capability is developed and delivered, nominally in 1- to 2-year cycles.
The period of each increment should not be arbitrarily constrained. The length of each increment and the number of deployable increments should be tailored and based on the logical progression of development and deployment for use in the field for the specific product being acquired. Figure 5. This model is distinguished from the previous model by the rapid delivery of capability through multiple acquisition increments, each of which provides part of the overall required program capability.
Each increment may have several limited deployments; each deployment will result from a specific build and provide the user with a mature and tested sub-element of the overall incremental capability. Several builds and deployments will typically be necessary to satisfy approved requirements for an increment of capability.
The identification and development of technical solutions necessary for follow-on capability increments have some degree of concurrency, allowing subsequent increments to be initiated and executed more rapidly.
DODI 5000.02 Operation of the Defense Acquisition System
DoDI 5000.02: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System