dod acquisition policy update september 27, 2016 · dod acquisition policy update september 27,...
TRANSCRIPT
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
DoD Decision Support Systems
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
Technology Maturation &
Risk Reduction
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Materiel Development
Decision
Deployment Operations & Support
Disposal
IOC
Build 1.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.3Build 0.1
Risk
Reduction
= Milestone Decision = Decision PointLegend:
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)
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Risk Reduction
Development &Fielding
Materiel Development
Decision
Build 1
Build 0
RiskReduction
Build
CDD Validation
OT&E
Build n
Build 2
Limited Fielding Decisions
. . .
Sustainment
Full Deployment
(FD)
IOC
Operations & Support
Build 2.1
OT&EBuild 2.n
Build 2.2. . .
Sustainment
FDD
Limited Fielding Decisions
FDIOC
B
Risk Reduction
Development &Fielding
Operations & Support
Increment 2
Disposal
Build n.1
OT&EBuild n.n
Build n.2. . .
Sustainment
FDD
Limited Fielding Decisions
FDIOC
B
Risk Reduction
Development &Fielding
Operations & Support
Increment n
= Milestone Decision
= Decision Point
Legend
Left: .5Right: 1.75
Top: .2Bottom: .7
Development RFP
Release Decision
Development RFPRelease 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
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Technology Maturation &
Risk Reduction
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Materiel Development
Decision
Operations & Support
Disposal
IOC
Build 1.1
Build 1.2
Build 1.3
Build 1.4
Build 0.1
Risk
Reduction
= Milestone Decision = Decision PointLegend:
CDD Validation
Build 1.5Build 2.1
Integration
OT&E
LRIP
Model: Hybrid-A
Build 3.1
Build 3.2*
Production & Deployment
Sustainment
Right: .1
Top: .2
Bottom: 1.1
* The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.
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
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
Materiel Development
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
Production & Deployment
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
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*
Production & Deployment
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
Operations & SupportTechnology Maturation &
RiskReduction
Build 2.2
Integration
C
LD
Build 2.3.1
Build 2.3.2
= Milestone Decision = Decision PointLegend:
Left: .6.3
Right: 1.7
Top: .2
Bottom: 1.3
* The actual number and type of builds during the program will depend on system type.
Development RFP
Release Decision
Development RFPRelease 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
Materiel Development
Decision
PreliminaryDesignReview
ConcurrentProduction and
Deployment
= Milestone Decision = Decision PointLegend:
C
FOCIOC
Sustainment Disposal
Operations & Support
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.
Production & Deployment
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
CDDDraftCDD
MDD
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
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.
Production & Deployment
DRFPRD
MaterielSolutionAnalysis
CDD-V
CDDICD Draft
CDD
Operations & SupportMateriel
DevelopmentDecision
IOC
FRP
Decision
Sustainment
Disposal
FOC
Engineering & Manufacturing Development
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
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
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
DoD Decision Support Systems
Effective Interaction
Essential for Success
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 Decision Support Systems
Effective Interaction
Essential for Success
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
40