Sign In
  • Question

    Can a Capabilites Development Document (CDD) contain the intent for final disposition and disposal of a system, or is that area totally a materiel developer responsibility?


    Answer

    Short answer:

    No, there is no specific requirement in the CJCSI 3170.01H or the recently released JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012) that directs provision of intent for final disposition and disposal of a materiel solution.  Although broad disposal information could be included in the CDD or CPD as it relates to capability needs or program affordability, it would require precise parameters that are authoritative, measurable, and testable.  Alternatively, clarifying information could be made a part of the "DOTmLPF-P Considerations" paragraph of either document if germane to describing, at an appropriate level of detail, the key logistics criteria, such as system reliability, maintainability, transportability, and supportability that will help minimize the system’s logistics footprint, enhance mobility, and reduce total ownership cost. While this may be possible in some circumstances, materiel disposal ultimately falls under the total lifecycle management responsibility of the program manager, per DoDI 5000.02, and clearly spelled out in program life cycle support documents such as the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (and Annexed System Disposal Plan), the Program Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Evaluation, etc. in compliance with all statutory or regulatory policy to include the Defense Materiel Disposition Manual, DoD 4160.21-M.  Any changes to planned development, production, sustainment, and disposal considerations can have far-reaching impacts from placement of the system into operational service through the planned end of service life and should be approved by the Program Manager beforehand to ensure resources are programmed and planned for accordingly.

    Long answer

    There is no specific requirement in the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System Instruction, CJCSI 3170.01H or the recently released Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS Manual, 19 Jan 2012) that directs provision of intent for final disposition and disposal of a materiel solution as this may prove very difficult to communicate in an authoritative, measurable, and testable method before a system has been developed. 

    The Capability Development Document (CDD) or Capability Production Document (CPD) define authoritative, measurable, and testable parameters across one or more increments of a materiel capability solution, by setting Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key Supporting Attributes (KSAs), and additional performance attributes necessary for the acquisition community to design and propose systems and to establish programmatic baselines. 

    Although broad disposal information could be included in the CDD or CPD as it relates to capability needs or program affordability, it would require precise parameters that are authoritative, measurable, and testable.  Alternatively, clarifying information could be made a part of the "DOTmLPF-P Considerations" paragraph of either document if germane to describing, at an appropriate level of detail, the key logistics criteria, such as system reliability, maintainability, transportability, and supportability that will help minimize the system’s logistics footprint, enhance mobility, and reduce total ownership cost. 

    Materiel disposal information ultimately falls under the total lifecycle management responsibility of the program manager, under DoDI 5000.02, and clearly spelled out in the program life cycle support documents such as the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (and Annexed System Disposal Plan), the Program Environmental, Safety and Occupational Health Evaluation, etc. in compliance with all statutory or regulatory policy to include the Defense Materiel Disposition Manual, DoD 4160.21-M.

    In either case, any changes to planned development, production, sustainment, and disposal considerations can have far-reaching impacts from placement of the system into operational service through the planned end of service life including, but not limited to:  program affordability issues, a program’s inability to achieve the O&S KSA for the planned lifecycle timeframes, breaches of the Acquisition Program Baseline, etc. should be approved by the Program Manager beforehand to ensure resources are programmed and planned for accordingly.

    Open full Question Details