The Iron Triangle: Understanding the Defense Acquisition System
The daunting challenge of navigating the Defense Acquisition System (DAS) is overwhelming at first. This is my notes on the Introduction to Defense Acquisition system by Louis Chiarella from George Washington School of Law Government Procurement. Additional information is accredited to Defense Acquisition University.
The Defense Acquisition System consists of the alignment of three rigorous bureaucratic processes, each with its own priorities, and prerogatives: requirements, as determined by the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development Systems; funding, as determined by the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process; and acquisition, with its contracting and program management rules to ensure the job gets done right while protecting the interests of the U.S. taxpayer.
Identifying the Need
Identifying whether there is a need for a new DoD weapon system starts with Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) process, which defines acquisition requirements and evaluation criteria for future defense programs. The purpose of JCIDS is to enable Joint Requirements Oversight Council to execute its statutory duties to assess joint military capabilities and identify, approve and prioritize gaps in the capabilities to meet National Defense Strategy. The primary objective of the JCIDS process is to ensure the capabilities required by the joint warfighter are identified with operational performance criteria. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) assesses and prioritizes capability needs, ensuring that acquisition programs align with the broader strategic objectives of the military.
JCIDS methodology uses top-level strategic guidance as a basis for identifying shortfalls “capability gaps” in joint warfighting capabilities, and this involves three steps: Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA), Documentation of Capability Needs, and review/validation/approval.
Capabilities Based Assessment will provide both material and non-material solutions. The non-material solution is documented in joint DOTMLPF-P (Doctrine, Organization, training, material, leadership, personnel, facilities, policies) change Recommendation. Material solutions are documented in Initial Capabilities Document (ICD). The ICD identities a capability gap that exists in a functional area and supports material development decision, Analysis of Alternatives, Technology Maturation Risk Reduction Strategy, Materiel Solution Analysis and Milestone A. For all analyses, key performance parameters include system survivability, force protection, energy, and sustainment.
Development
The baseline process of the acquisition program consists of phases, each preceded by a milestone or decision point, during which a system goes through Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E); Production; Fielding/Deployment; Sustainment; and Disposal. The Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) will approve entrance into the appropriate phase by signing an acquisition decision memorandum upon completion of a successful decision window. The Adaptive Acquisition Framework (DODI 5000.02) lays out different acquisition pathways:
The following are phases of a Major Capability Acquisition:
The MCA consists of 5 phases, 3 milestone decision points (A, B, C), and 4 other decision points, which consists of Materiel Development Decision (MDD), Capability Development Document (CDD) Validation Decision, Development Request for Proposal (RFP) release decision, and Full-Rate Production (FRP) Decision.
Phase 1 (Design): Materiel Solution Analysis Phase (MSA) is to assess potential solutions and conduct Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), and establish a program office to satisfy phase-specific entrance criteria for the next program milestone. The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) identifies a gap in capability and develops requirements to fill the gap and is documented in the Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM).
Phase 2 (Build): Technology Maturation Risk Reduction Phase (TMRR) determines appropriate technologies to be integrated into a system. Competitive prototyping is a statutory requirement and TMRR demonstrates critical technologies on representative prototypes. Ultimately, this reduces technology, engineering, integration, and life-cycle cost risks. TMRR includes developmental testing, CDD Validation Decision, Development Request for Proposal (RFP) release decision, Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Pre-EMD review.
Phase 3 (Refine): Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase (EMD) is to develop, build, and test a product to verify that all operational and derived requirements have been met and to support production and deployment decisions. Major activities include completing all needed hardware and software detailed design, conducting Critical Design Review (CDR), perform Developmental Testing (DT) and early Operational Testing/Operational Assessments (EOA/OA).
Phase 4 (Produce, Test, Deliver): Production and Deployment focuses on delivering requirements-compliant products to receiving military organizations, and achieves operational capability through Operational Assessment and Production Assessment. Operational Assessment involves Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), which is dedicated in field testing under realistic combat conditions to determine operational effectiveness and suitability.
Production Assessment involves Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), which produces minimum quantities required to support operational testing and establishes initial production base. Additionally, it provides an efficient ramp-up to Full Rate Production (FRP). For delivery phase, First Unit Equipped (FUE) is a scheduled date a system or end item are issued to the designated initial operational capability unit and training specified in the new equipment training plan has been accomplished.
Phase 5 (Operations and Support): O&S is the most expensive life cycle phase, and the purpose is to execute the product support strategy and satisfy materiel readiness and operational support. The system may undergo several modifications and O&S will last until the system reaches disposal.
Resourcing through Planning Programming Budgeting and Execution (PPBE)
PPBE is the mechanism that budgets for and funds Materiel Capabilities throughout their Lifecycle. PPBE is currently an annual process, which requires the Military Departments and Defense Agencies to submit a program request (known as the Program Objectives Memorandum (POM)) covering a five fiscal year period and a budget request (known as the Budget Estimate Submission (BES)) that addresses the first fiscal year of the five year POM submission.
Principle guides include DODI 7045.14, National Defense Strategy, program guidance, budget guidance, and Force Development Guidance. PPBE facilitates the alignment of resources to prioritized capabilities, balancing necessary warfighting capabilities with risk, affordability, and effectiveness.
The planning phase provides overall guidance for resource allocation and planning can take more than 5-FY timeframe (7–10 years). The key question is: “How much defense is enough?” The planning phase is led by Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
The programming phase allocates resources to support DPG goals and focuses on next 5-FY timeframe. The key question is: “How much defense can we afford?” The programming phase is led by the director of Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation.
The budgeting phase prepares an executable and defensible budget and focuses on the next FY timeframe. The key question is: “Are we adequately funded to support the strategy?” The budgeting phase is led by Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller.
Finally, the execution phase focuses on current FY. Appropriation life cycles varies by categories, with Operations and Maintenance (1 yr), RDT&E (2 yr), Procurement (3 yr), Ships (5 yr), MILCON (5 yr), and MILPERS (1 yr).
The FYDP structure allows a user to examine DOD plans and programs in three dimensions: component (e.g., Air Force); major force program (e.g., strategic forces); and appropriation title (e.g., procurement). According to DOD, the FYDP is intended in part to link DoD’s internal review structure based on program elements with Congress’s review structure based on appropriation accounts.
