Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

PM Policies and Guidance

Policy & Guidance Sites

See documents below.

collapse PM Policy Topics : DoD-Level Policies & Guidance ‎(11)
collapse PM Policy Topics : National Strategy & Conceptual-Level Guidance ‎(5)
collapse PM Policy Topics : Other Policies & Guidance ‎(1)
Summary Description
PM Topic Areas
2015 - The National Military Strategy of the United States of America.aspx
The United States Military's Contribution to National Security, June 2015.Published by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
DoD-Level Policies and Guidance
37th CSAs Thoughts on the Future of the Army June 2011.pdf
Over the past decade, our Army 11:15 performed superbly in the most difficult environments imaginable.Through it all, our Army remains the most capable and decisive land force in the world. However, as a learning  organization and after ten years or war, the Secretary of the Army has reframed our role as an Army and has set a clear path forward for institutional adaptation to realize his vesion. In turn, I have established nine focus areas that will serve as the foundation from which we will deliver the Secreatry of the Army's vision.
Service-Level Policies and Guidance
ACAT 1 Navy Programs.aspx
List of Navy ACAT I programs  from the Department of Navy Research, Development & Acquisition Web site
Air Force E-Publishing Website.aspx
MISSION... is to provide publishing products and services for administrative publications and forms to Air Force customers worldwide. VISION... is to provide life-cycle management of Air Force Electronic Publishing to enable product and service delivery to the end user, regardless of media, at the time and location needed, in peace and in war. 
Army Mar 13 Equipment Modernization Strategy.pdf
This report by the Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8 Future Force Division is dated 04 March 2013
Army Publishing Directorate Website.aspx
The Army Publishing Directorate is the Army's leader in publishing and distributing information products, employing advanced technologies to ensure responsive support worldwide. Our primary mission is supplying official authenticated information to enhance the readiness of the total force.
Better Buying Power.aspx
Better Buying Power (BBP) delivers warfighting capabilities needed within the constraints of a declining defense budget by achieving “better buying power” for the warfighter and the taxpayer.
Capstone Concept for Joint Ops Jan 2009.pdf
Dated 15 January 2009

The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations describes in broad terms my vision for how the joint force circa 2016-2028 will operate in response to a wide variety of security challenges. It proposes that future joint force commanders will combine and subsequently adapt some combination of four basic categories of military activity -- combat, security, engagement, and relief and reconstruction -- in accordance with the unique requirements of each operational situation. The concept is informed by current strategic guidance, but because it looks to the future, it is intended to be adaptable, as it must be, to changes in that guidance.

M. G. Mullen, Admiral, U.S. Navy
CBO Oct 15 Rpt Re Navy FY16 Shipbuilding Plan.pdf
Congressional Budget Office reportOctober 2015Summary

The Department of Defense (DoD) submitted to the Congress the Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan for fiscal years 2016 to 2045 in April 2015. The total annual cost of 
carrying out the 2016 plan—an average of about $20 billion in 2015 dollars per year over the next 30 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates—would be one third more than the amount the Navy has received in Congressional appropriations for shipbuilding in recent decades. The Navy’s 2016 shipbuilding plan is similar to its 2015 plan with respect to the goal for the total number of battle force ships, the number and types of ships the Navy would purchase, and the funding proposed to implement its plans.
Clinger Cohen Act.pdf
The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 that shapes DoD's and other Federal Agencies' approaches to IT acquisition and management;
- The House of Representatives Report 104-450, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Conference Report, that provides an historical legislative perspective for the Act;
- Title 10, United States Code, Section 2223 that gives additional responsibilities to the DoD CIO and the CIOs of the Military Departments;
- Executive Order 13011, "Federal Information Technology," that provides policy guidance for significantly improving the acquisition and management of IT by implementing the Clinger-Cohen Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
- Secretary of Defense Cohen's Memorandum, "Implementation of Subdivision E of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106)," June 2, 1997, that defines and clarifies how the Act will be implemented in DoD, and the responsibilities of the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) vis--vis those of the Military Department CIOs;
- Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre's Memorandum, "DoD Chief Information Officer Executive Board," March 31, 2000, and DoD CIO Executive Board Charter; and
- Deputy Secretary of Defense Hamre's Memorandum, "DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) Guidance and Policy Memorandum No. 8-8001 - March 31, 2000 - Global Information Grid," March 31, 2000. 
CRS Oct 15 Rpt Re Army MC JLTV.pdf
Congressional Research Service (CRS) report prepared for Members and Committees of Congressby Andrew Feickert, Specialist in Military Ground ForcesOctober 14, 2015Summary
The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) is being developed by the Army and the Marine Corps as a successor to the High Mobility, Multi-Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), which has been in service since 1985. On October 28, 2008, awards were made for the JLTV Technology Development (TD) Phase to three industry teams: (1) BAE Systems, (2) the team of Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicle, and (3) AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems.
CVN-21 - Aircraft Carrier for the 21st Century.aspx
web site with general information about CVN-21The USS Bush started as CVNX-1, and was to be the first "Next Generation" aircraft carrier. Budget, schedule, and technical realities set in (complicated by geopolitics), and it was decided the Bush would be that LAST of the Nimitz class, and the new class was renamed CVN-21. .
Cybersecurity Guidebook v1.10 signed.pdf
Department of Defense (DoD) systems and networks are constantly under cyber attack. Nearly all defense systems incorporate information technology (IT) in some form, and must be resilient from cyber adversaries. This means that cybersecurity applies to weapons systems and platforms; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems; and information systems and networks. Cybersecurity is a critical priority for the DoD, and is a vital aspect of maintaining the United States’ technical superiority. DoD recently revised several of its policies to more strongly emphasize the integration of cybersecurity into its acquisition programs to ensure resilient systems. This guidebook is intended to assist Program Managers (PM) in the efficient and cost effective integration of cybersecurity into their systems, in accordance with the updated DoD policies. The guidebook is based on the following DoD policies:  

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 8510.01, Risk  Management  Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), March 12, 2014; cancels the previous DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP) and institutes a new, risk-based approach to cybersecurity.
DoDI 8500.01, Cybersecurity, March 14, 2014; establishes that cybersecurity must be fully integrated into the system lifecycle.
DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, January 7, 2015; includes regulatory cybersecurity requirements in the following Enclosures: 3 – Systems Engineering (SE), 4 – Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E), 5 – Operational and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (OT&E and LFT&E), and 11 - Requirements Applicable to all Programs Containing IT; establishes that cybersecurity RMF steps  and  activities should be initiated as early as possible and fully integrated into the DoD acquisition process, including requirements management, systems engineering, and test and evaluation. 

DoD 2014 QDR.pdf
March 4, 2014 

The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) seeks to adapt, reshape, and rebalance our military to prepare for the strategic challenges and opportunities we face in the years ahead.
 Building on the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, the QDR prioritizes three strategic pillars:  defending the homeland; building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression; and remaining prepared to win decisively against any adversary should deterrence fail.  Guided by this updated defense strategy, we will rebalance the military over the next decade and put it on a sustainable  path to protect and advance U.S. interests and sustain U.S. globalleadershjp.
 The QDR describes the tough choices we are making in a period of fiscal austerity to maintain the world's finest fighting forces.  These include reducing force structure in order to protect and expand critical capabilities, modernizing the forces, and investing in readiness. Although the future force will be smaller, it will be ready, capable, and able to project power over great distances.  Investment decisions will ensure that we maintain our technological edge over potential adversaries, and that we advance U.S. interests across all domains.  Staying ahead of security challenges requires that we continue to innovate, not only in the technologies we develop,  but in the way U.S. forces operate.  Innovation - within the Department and working with other U.S. departments and agencies and with international partners - will be center stage as we adapt to meet future challenges.
 To ensure U.S. Armed Forces remain ready and capable requires that we make much­ needed reforms across the defense enterprise.  We will prioritize combat power by reducing unnecessary overhead and streamlining activities.  In addition, military and civilian leaders across the Department agree that we must reform military compensation in a responsible way that protects the ability to modernize the force over the long-term.  The All-Volunteer  Force is one of the greatest strengths ofthe United States, and we owe it to future Sold iers, Sai lors, Airmen, and Marines to ensure that they are prepared for tomorrow's threats.
 The Department stands ready to work in partnership with Congress and the American people to implement these difficult choices.  It is only through an active and robust bipartisan dialogue that the Department can hope to make the transition necessary to ensure that the U.S. Armed Forces remain the preeminent global force of the future.
DoD Directive 5106.01.aspx
This DoD Directive is dated August 19, 2014
1. PURPOSE. This Directive reissues DoD Directive (DoDD) 5106.01 (Reference (a)) to update the mission, organization and management, responsibilities and functions, relationships, and authorities of the IG DoD, in accordance with sections 113 and 141 of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (b)) and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, title 5, U.S.C. Appendix (Reference (c)).
DoD Directive 5106.01 Incorporating Change 1
DoD IG Aug 13 Rpt Re Cost Reimbursement Contracts.pdf
This DoD Inspector General report, No. DoDIG-2013-120, is dated August 23, 2013.
DOD IG Rpt Re JSF Oversight.pdf
This DoD Inspector General  report, no. DODIG-2013-140, "Quality Assurance Assessment of the F-35 Lighting II Program is dated September 30, 2013.
DoD Issuances-The Official DoD Website for DoD Issuances.aspx
The Directives Division administers and operates the DoD Issuances Program, the DoD Information Collections Program, DOD Forms Management Program, and the DoD Plain Language Program for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
DoD Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan March 2012.pdf
Pursuant to title 10, U.S.C., section 138c, the Department of Defense (DoD) published the
Operational Energy Strategy on June 14, 2011, to transform the way U.S. Armed Forces
consume energy in military operations. The Strategy sets the direction for operational energy
use within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Office of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Staff, Combatant Commands, Military Departments, and
Defense agencies (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
The goal of the Operational Energy Strategy is energy security for the Warfighter – to assure that

U.S. forces have a reliable supply of energy for 21
st century military missions. For DoD to reach
this goal, the Strategy provides a three-fold approach:
DoDD 5000.01 Nov 20 2007.aspx
DoD Directive Number 5000.01 - May 12, 2003The Defense Acquisition SystemCertified Current as of November 20, 2007
DoDI 5000.02 February 2 2017.aspx
DoD Instruction Number 5000.02 - January 7, 2015Operation of the Defense Acquisition SystemIncorporating Change 2, Effective February 2, 2017
Dr. Ashton B. Carter Former Secretary of Defense.aspx
DoD Biography
F-22 Raptor Information.aspx
History and status of the F-22 from Wikipedia.
FAR guide Dan Ward 1 Feb 2016.pdf
Ignorance of the FAR is a greater barrier to government innovation than the FAR itself. To help foster greater innovation, speed, and effectiveness in federal contracting efforts, the following pages present selected excerpts (emphasis added) from the FAR and DoD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System. Accompanying each excerpt is a brief commentary on potential ways to interpret and implement these regulations, as well as summaries of the underlying principles.
This document is not a comprehensive overview of the entire body of federal acquisition policy and regulation. Instead, it aims to highlight specific portions from two key regulations which describe the simplifications, agilities, flexibilities and alternatives available to acquisition professionals.
Note that this document is not an official opinion and does not constitute legal or contractual advice. Instead, this informal analysis provides an easy starting point for further discussion. The goal is to equip program managers, engineers, and other acquisition practitioners from government and industry alike with an accessible quick reference guide to some of the more useful and empowering portions of federal acquisition policy.
Fully Burdened Cost of Energy Guidance - 23Jul12.pdf.aspx
Memorandum dated July 23, 2012 from the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Attached is the updated methodological guidance to calculate the Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE) in Analyses of Alternatives (AoAs) and in other acquisition tradespace decisions, with CAPE has now approved. Working with DPAP staff, we will now add tis guidance to the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 3 (Affordability and Life-Cycle Resource Estimates).
GAO Best Practices Focus on Requirements Feb 2008.pdf
GAO Report to Congressional Committees - February 2008
A Senate report related to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 asked GAO to compare quality management practices used by the Department of Defense (DOD) and its contractors to those used by leading commercial companies and make suggestions for improvement.
To do this, GAO (1) determined the impact of quality problems on selected weapon systems and prime contractor practices that contributed to the problems; (2) identified commercial practices that can be used to improve DOD weapon systems; (3) identified problems that DOD must overcome; and (4) identified recent DOD initiatives that could improve quality. GAO examined 11 DOD weapon systems with known quality problems and met with quality officials from DOD, defense prime contractors, and five leading commercial companies that produce complex products and/or are recognized for quality products.
GAO Report Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs March 2010.pdf
This is a Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees, number GA)-10-388SP.

In 2009, the Secretary of Defense proposed canceling or significantly curtailing weapon programs with a projected cost of at least $126 billion. Congress supported several of the recommended terminations. DOD plans to develop new options to replace several of the canceled programs. The most significant of these will be the effort to restructure the Army’s terminated Future Combat System program. At the same time, DOD’s 2009 portfolio of major defense acquisition programs grew to 102 programs—a net increase of 6 since last year. DOD did not issue complete Selected Acquisition Reports for these programs in 2009, which precluded an analysis of the overall cost and schedule performance of DOD’s portfolio in this year’s assessment.
GAO Rpt on Funding Major Systems.pdf
A review of the DOD full funding process and its impact as DOD shifts money around when cost increases.  GAO looks at the reason why this happens, compares DOD to commercial companies.  The comparison is base on the way the commercial firms fund and do cost estimates and use of assumptions
IMD Cost Methodology Guidebook posted 27May2015.pdf
Benefits of DoDD 5250.01 & IMD Planning Process for the Acquisition Community (AC)

Early intelligence planning reduces program costs and risk by enabling the Intelligence  Community (IC) to better plan, prioritize and resource future IMD requirements
 Identification of IMD requirements enables justification of non-program resources to be applied to areas that have cross-program or cross-service overlap
 Drives standardization of IMD definitions, metadata and customer interfaces with the end goal of automated data dissemination           
 Analysis of IMD gaps and program risk can influence both AC and IC tool/technology development with sufficient time to impact the program

Long Description
Department of Defense Directive 5250.01 dated 22 January 2013, requires that a Life-cycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP) be established for acquisition programs that are Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) dependent.  The Defense Intelligence Agency’s Intelligence Mission Data Center (IMDC) is the focal point for the development of all LMDPs.  IMD includes, but is not limited to the following functional areas: characteristics and performance (C&P), electronic warfare integrated reprogramming (EWIR), order of battle (OOB), geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) and signatures. Refer to the following list for a more detailed description of IMD.

Foreign Systems Characteristics and Performance data (C&P): All-source derived assessments of foreign military system capabilities and physical attributes.
Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming (EWIR): All-source derived data describing observed and assessed (as applicable) radio frequency (RF), antenna, receiver, weapon, platform, and Electro-Optical/Infra-Red (EO/IR) parametric data. The EWIR data base includes threat, neutral military, and friendly and commercial system mission data.
Order of Battle (OOB): The identification, command structure, strength, and disposition of personnel, equipment, and units of an armed force.
Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT): The exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information to describe, assess, and visually depict physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth. GEOINT consists of imagery, imagery intelligence, and geospatial information.
Signatures: A distinctive characteristic or set of characteristics that consistently recurs and identifies a piece of equipment, material, activity, individual, or event. This does not include intended RF emissions (for communications or detection e.g. EWIR), characteristics and performance data, or cyber-related signatures.

A program is intelligence mission data dependent if its sensor, platform, or information system relies on IMD for design, development, testing, training or operations of sensors, models, or algorithms for the purpose of: combat identification; targeting; tracking; blue force tracking; or detecting & identifying activities, events, persons, materials or equipment.
The LMDP defines specific IMD requirements for a program, and becomes more detailed as the system progresses toward IOC.  The IMDC uses the knowledge derived from the LMDPs to affect procurement through the sharing of knowledge with all intelligence providers.  This IMD will be used by the community in the creation of products with increased precision for the weapon systems’ procurement cycle.  These products will assist the acquisition community with threat-based requirements; not only for survivability but also for mission accomplishment. These concepts are spelled out in DODD 5250.01.  IMD development, production, and sharing will be in support of acquisition programs’ efforts and operational systems.
LMDPs should be written as soon as program IMD requirements are identified.  In order to have the LMDP and associated risk assessment completed prior to the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB)/Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) review, the LMDP must be started at least 180 days out from the DAB or MDR [Milestone A, B, C, and/or Full Rate Production Decision Review], as applicable.  The IMDC will assist the program in drafting the initial LMDP sufficiently early in the program timeline to allow for risk assessment. Draft versions of the LMDP shall be coordinated with the IMDC throughout LMDP development.
The preferred domain for submitting an LMDP is at the SIPRNet level but the IMDC will accept these documents at the NIPRNet level.
The files listed below for download can also be accessed on SIPRNet at the following path:
(Note: Access to this SIPRNet SharePoint site requires the user to have a Passport account)
Links for downloading the LMDP guidebook and associated template are indicated below. If you have any questions on the LMDP, IMD requirements, or DoDD 5250.01, contact the IMDC by e-mail at one of the following central e-mail addresses (underscores must be typed):
JWICS: IMDC_LMDP_support@dodiis.ic.govSIPRNet: IMDC_LMDP_support@dia.smil.milUnclass:
Please be advised that the guidebook is a DRAFT version and is subject to updates and changes. Comments and feedback are welcome regarding these files.  Inputs may be sent 

LMDP_Guidebook_v3 1.pdf
Life Cycle Mission Data Plan process flow.pdf
IMD Cost Methodology Guidebook.pdf
DoD Directive 5250 01.pdf
OUSDI IMD Policy Memorandum 21 Jun 2013.pdf
IPMR Implementation Guide Jan 242013.pdf
This IPMR Implementation Guide is dated January 23, 2013.

The Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Data Item Description (DID) DI-MGMT-81861contains data for measuring contractors' cost and schedule performance on Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition contracts. It may also be tailored for use on intra-government work agreements. It is structured around seven formats that contain the content and relationships required for electronic submissions. This guide covers the application of the DID, how to tailor the DID in the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and clarification on the intent of the DID.This guide is applicable to all ODS contracts with a requirement for the Integrated Program Management Report (IPMR) Data Item Description (DID) DI-MGMT-81861.
1 - 30Next
Chat with DAU Assistant
Bot Image