Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
 
      

DoD-Level Policies and Guidance

 CJCSI 5123.01H, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and Implementation of the JCIDS, 31 Aug 2018                                                   

 JCIDS Manual, Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System, 31 Aug 2018                                                    

 JCIDS Primer: Joint Capabilities Integration Development System, 31 Jan 2019                                          

 IT Box Primer: Information Technology (IT) Box, 31 Jan 2019                                    

 JCIDS Rapid Deployment Training,  Changes in the JCIDS Manual & Charter, 11 Oct 2018

 Joint Staff J8 Intellipedia website (requires CAC)

Acquisition-Related Policy, Guidance, and Tools

Instruction - DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the DAS, Change 1, 26 Jan 2017

Defense Acquisition Guidebook 

Guidebook - Operating and Support Cost Management

Other Related Policy, Guidance, and Tools

Website - OSD, Joint Data Support (requires CAC)


  
  
Topic Area
  
Organization
  
  
ACC Topic
  
Summary Description
  
  
Joint Capability Area Management Plan JCAMP Final 27 Jan 2010.pdf
  
DoD; Joint StaffReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
The purpose of this JCA Management Plan (JCAMP) is to describe processes and establish roles and responsibilities for the managment, refinement, and continued development of the Joint Capability Area (JCA) framework and definitions.
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
Joint Warfare Evolving Perspective 28 Jan 2003.pdf
  
DoD; Joint StaffReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
Approved by JROC Memorandum 022-03


The Joint Requirements Oversight Council concurs with the white paper entitled An Evolving Joint Perspective: US Joint Warfare and Crisis Resolution in the 21st Century and enforces its publication as a common frame of reference for future joint concept development. This document provides a credible, intellectual perspective of key joint characteristics and desired joint capabilities that are envisioned to transform the joint force and ensure our continued dominance across the range of military operations.
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
DoDI 5000.02 February 2 2017.aspx
  
ReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
DoD Instruction Number 5000.02 - January 7, 2015Operation of the Defense Acquisition SystemIncorporating Change 2, Effective February 2, 2017
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
DoD Operational Energy Strategy Implementation Plan March 2012.pdf
  
Contracting; EngineeringAir Force; Army; Defense Logistics Agency; DoD; Joint Staff; NavyReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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:
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
Cybersecurity Guidebook v1.10 signed.pdf
  
Cybersecurity; Engineering; Information Technology; Program Management; Requirements Management; Test and EvaluationDoDLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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. 

Additionally, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Manual, updated February 12, 2015, implements a robust cyber survivability requirement within the mandatory system survivability Key Performance Parameter (KPP). This new requirement will enhance system resilience in a cyber-contested environment or after exposure to cyber threats. 
The risk management framework (RMF) brings a risk-based approach to the implementation of cybersecurity. Transition to the RMF leverages existing acquisition and systems engineering personnel, processes, and the artifacts developed as part of existing systems security engineering (SSE) activities. Unlike a compliance-based checklist approach, the RMF supports integration of cybersecurity in the systems design process, resulting in a more trustworthy system that can dependably operate in the face of a capable cyber adversary. This guidebook emphasizes integrating cybersecurity activities into existing processes including requirements, SSE, program protection planning, trusted systems and networks analysis, developmental and operational test financial management and cost estimating, and sustainment and disposal.  
This guidebook is based on a set of key tenets that form the basis for the guidance that follows. The following tenets are not exhaustive, but do outline some of the more important concepts and principles that should be followed to successfully implement the RMF process into acquisition systems:  

Cybersecurity is risk-based, mission-driven, and addressed early and continually.
Cybersecurity requirements are treated like other system requirements.
System security architecture and data flows are developed early, and are continuously updated throughout the system lifecycle as the system and environment (including threats) change, to maintain the desired security posture based on risk assessments and mitigations.
Cybersecurity is implemented to increase a system’s capability to protect, detect, react, and restore, even when under attack from an adversary.
A modular, open systems approach is used to implement system and security architectures that support the rapid evolution of countermeasures to emerging threats and vulnerabilities.
Cybersecurity risk assessments are conducted early and often, and integrated with other risk management activities.
As the system matures and security controls are selected, implemented, assessed, and monitored, the PM collaborates with the authorizing official (AO), the individual responsible for ensuring the cybersecurity risk posture of the system is managed and maintained during operations, to ensure the continued alignment of cybersecurity in the technical baselines, system security architecture, data flows, and design.
Reciprocity is used where possible through sharing and reuse of test and evaluation products i.e., “test once and use by all.”
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
DoD Directive 5106.01.aspx
  
DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
Fully Burdened Cost of Energy Guidance - 23Jul12.pdf.aspx
  
ReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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).
5/18/2017 7:46 PM
The DoD Directive 5000.01 Certified Current as of November 20 2007.aspx
  
DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
DoD Directive 5000.01 Certified Current as of November 20, 2007.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
New DoD Instruction 5000.02 Issued.aspx
  
DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
Link to copy of newest DoDI 5000.02. 


DoD Releases Updated Instruction for Acquisitions System

 
DoDI 5000.02 Transmittal Letter, dated January 7, 2015, issues the new Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 and cancels the interim version that was implemented on November 25, 2013.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
GAO Best Practices Focus on Requirements Feb 2008.pdf
  
Auditing; Engineering; PurchasingAir Force; Army; Defense Contract Management Agency; DoD; NavyLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Online Hyperlinked JCIDS Manual Common Access Card CAC and - or an Intelink account are required to access this site.aspx
  
ReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
The attached JCIDS Manual - PDF version (is subject to change)  Go to the Intelink.gov site listed below to be sure you are viewing the most recent version.
Here is the link to the CJCSI 3170.01I - 23 January 2015  - JCIDS Instruction and the JCIDS Manual
The JCIDS Manual is subject to change at any time and we will do our best to post the most current version on this page, but we can not guarantee that it is the most recent version.  To view the "LIVE" online version of the JCIDS Manual (with hyperlinks), go to the Intelink.gov Website at https://www.intelink.gov/wiki/JCIDS_Manual.   THE MANUAL POSTED ON THE INTELINK.GOV SITE WILL ALWAYS BE THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE MANUAL.  Please note that a Common Access Card (CAC) and an Intelink account are required to access this site.    To obtain an email notice anytime we add content or make changes to this page, click on the word "Subscribe" located near the upper right hand corner of this page just below the search box, then be sure to click on OK.  
This manual sets forth guidelines and procedures for operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) regarding the development and staffing of JCIDS documents in support of CJCSI 3170.01I (JCIDS Instructions).

1. Purpose. This Manual augments references a and b with detailed guidelines and procedures for operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and interactions with several other departmental processes to facilitate the timely and cost effective development of capability solutions for the warfighter. This Manual provides information regarding activities including identification of capability requirements and capability gaps, development of requirements documents, gatekeeping and staffing procedures, post-validation development and implementation of materiel and non-materiel capability solutions, interaction with other Department of Defense (DOD) processes, and mandatory training for personnel involved in the requirements processes. 

This Manual is not intended to stand alone – readers are encouraged to become familiar with references a and b before reviewing this Manual.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
GAO Rpt on Funding Major Systems.pdf
  
Auditing; EngineeringAir Force; Army; DoD; NavyReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
RAM C Manual Jun 09.pdf
  
Engineering; Information Technology; Program Management; Test and EvaluationDoD; Joint StaffLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
The purpose of this manual is threefold:
I. Provide guidance in how to develop and document realistic sustainment Key Performance Parameter (KPP)/Key System Attribute (KSA) requirements and related supporting rationale
2. Provide guidance so the acquisition community understands how the requirements must be measured and tested throughout the system life cycle
3. Describe desired processes for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Joint Staff, and other stakeholders to interface with Services and programs when developing the sustainment requirements.
Use ofthe processes outlined in this document will assist in assessing RAM-C for the alternatives considered in the Analysis of Alternatives and articulating the requirements and the supporting rationale in the Capability Development Document and Capability Production Documents and the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Fulfillment of Urgent Operational Needs Report Defense Science Board Report July 2009.pdf
  
Learning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
DOD Should Establish ‘Dual Acquisition Path'
For Rapid, Deliberate Acquisitions, DSB Says

To satisfy the urgent operational needs of combatant commanders, the Defense Department should establish a streamlined approach for acquiring technologies that is consistent with the regular acquisition process “but carried out in an integrated and compressed manner,” the Defense Science Board said in a recent report.

According to the 61-page DSB report released July 15, the “deliberate processes” DOD follows when developing complex defense acquisition programs are incompatible with the goal of rapidly delivering technologies that services need in theater immediately.

In an accompanying letter, Jacques Gansler, chairman of the DSB task force that prepared the report and former under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, wrote that a rapid acquisition process should seek to deliver a required capability in as little as two months and no longer than 24 months after the requirement is identified. “Deliberate processes should be used for more complex needs that require development efforts,” he added.

“The accelerated pace of change in the tactics, techniques, and procedures used by adversaries of the United States has heightened the need for a rapid response to new threats,” Gansler wrote. “Fielding systems in response to urgent operations needs over the past half decade has revealed that DOD lacks the ability to rapidly field new capabilities for the warfighter in a systematic and effective way.”

Traditional Systems Do Not Foster Rapid Responses

In recent years, DOD has stood up more than 20 “ad hoc” organizations to address rapid acquisition matters relating to combatant commander requests for urgent solutions to new threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, the DSB report said. Meanwhile, joint commands and the military services have codified new processes implementing rapid acquisition directives, based on lessons learned.

Nevertheless, it has become apparent that “DOD has not made major, institutional changes in its budgeting and acquisition processes essential to posture itself for ongoing hybrid warfare reality,” the report said. “Current long-standing business practices and regulations are poorly suited” to rapidly evolving enemy threats.

Another issue is that rapid acquisition “often challenges traditional systems, practices, and culture,” the report said. For instance, the defense acquisition workforce “is rewarded for following complex procedures with accuracy and precision, and is punished for bypassing” those procedures. “Rapid responses necessitate creativity and workarounds that go against these norms,” the report said.

DOD also needs the ability “to perform triage” on urgent operational need statements sent by combatant commanders, including evaluations of the “true capability gap” and analysis of alternatives, to determine which acquisition approach—rapid or deliberate—is most appropriate, the report said.

“In some cases, triage may reveal that acquisition of a different solution than originally proposed better fits the need, or it may identify the need to acquire a more developmental solution,” the report said.

Task Force Recommends New Rapid Acquisition Agency

Because the report found that all DOD acquisition needs cannot be met by current acquisition processes, the DSB task force made five recommendations to expedite the delivery of urgent warfighter capabilities.

The first is for the defense secretary to “formulize a dual acquisition path that separates ‘rapid' and ‘deliberate' acquisitions” so that warfighting capability solutions may start down either path “depending on the urgency as well as on technology availability and maturity,” the report said.

Secondly, the task force recommends that the executive and legislative branches work to establish a fund specifically designated for rapid acquisition and fielding activities.
Third, the task force recommends that DOD establish a new agency within the office of the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, to be known as the Rapid Acquisition and Fielding Agency.

Borrowing language similar to that used earlier in 2009 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates regarding the need for acquisition reform at DOD, the task force suggests that the new agency's mission would be to focus “on speed, utilizing existing technologies, and acquisition flexibilities to achieve a 75 percent solution—initially ‘good enough' to address the urgent needs of the warfighter.”

The task force's forth recommendation is for initial positions and funding for the new USD(AT&L) agency to be drawn from the existing ad hoc defense agencies currently working on rapid acquisition issues, the report said.

Finally, the task force recommends that DOD establish a streamlined, integrated approach for the rapid acquisition of systems.
PM
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
JFCOM Joint Operating Environment v1.96 Dec 07.pdf
  
Engineering; Information TechnologyArmyLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), Joint Operating Environment: Trends & Challenges for the Future Joint Forces Through 2030 - dated December 2007.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
GAO Report Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs March 2010.pdf
  
Auditing; Contracting; Earned Value Management; Engineering; Program Management; Test and EvaluationAir Force; Army; DoD; NavyLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
OMB Work Reserved for Performance by Federal Government Employees.pdf
  
ContractingLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
The Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is issuing a proposed policy letter to provide guidance to Executive Departments and agencies on circumstances when work must be reserved for performance by Federal government employees. The Presidential Memorandum on Government Contracting, issued on March 4, 2009, directs OMB to clarify when governmental outsourcing of services is, and is not, appropriate, consistent with section 321 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2009.


Comment Date: OFPP invites interested parties from both the public and private sectors to provide comments to be considered in the formulation of the final policy letter. Interested parties should submit comments in writing to the address below on or before June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• E-mail:

OFPPWorkReserved@omb.eop.gov.



• Facsimile: 202–395–5105.

• Mail: Office of Federal Procurement

Policy, ATTN: Mathew Blum, New Executive Office Building, Room 9013, 724 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Nunn McCurdy Report Congressional Research Service June21 2010.pdf
  
Earned Value Management; Engineering; Program ManagementAir Force; Army; DoD; NavyLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
This is a Congressional Research Service Report for Congress

The Nunn-McCurdy Act has been statutorily amended a number of times over the years. One of the most significant changes to the reporting requirements occurred in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163), when Congress added the original baseline estimate asa threshold against which to measure cost growth. The new standard prevents DOD from avoiding a Nunn-McCurdy breach by simply re-baselining a program. Another significant change occurred in the FY2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (P.L. 111-23), when Congressenacted a requirement that programs with critical breaches should be presumed terminated unless the Secretary of Defense certifies the program. For programs that are certified, DOD must (1) revoke the prior milestone approval, (2) restructure the program, and (3) provide Congress a written explanation of the root-cause of the cost growth. These changes were fueled in part over Congressional concern that programs with chronic cost growth and schedule delays were not being terminated and Congress was not being provided specific information explaining what caused the cost growth. 

Some analysts believe that the Nunn-McCurdy Act has been effective as a reporting mechanism for informing Congress of cost overruns in major acquisition programs. As a result of the Nunn-McCurdy process, Congress has increased its visibility into the cost performance of the acquisition stage of MDAPs. However, some analysts suggest that Nunn-McCurdy is not asufficiently comprehensive reporting mechanism because program managers can sometimes take steps to avoid a breach and because Nunn-McCurdy does not apply to all elements of a weapon system’s life-cycle costs, such as its operations, support, or disposal costs.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
USD ATL Cowen Speech 0209111.pdf
  
Engineering; Services AcquisitionAir Force; DoD; NavyLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
Ashton B. Carter, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Prepared Remarks at Cowen Investment Conference, New York, NY February 9, 2011

 
Remarks
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
MIL STD 881C 3 Oct 11.pdf
  
Contracting; Earned Value Management; Engineering; Information Technology; Program Management; Test and EvaluationAir Force; DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
DoD Standard Practice
Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items
MIL-STD-881C3 October 2011SUPERSEDINGMIL-HDBK-881A30 July 2005MIL-STD-881B25 March 1993
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Linking and Streamlining the Defense Requirements Acquisition and Budget Processes Defense Business Board.pdf
  
Contracting; Engineering; Information Technology; Program ManagementAir Force; Army; DoD; Joint Staff; NavyPresentationDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
This Defense Business Board report to the Secretary of Defense is dated 12-02.
 
TASK 

On April 29, 2011, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested the Defense Business Board conduct a study on Linking and Streamlining the Defense Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes. The overarching goal outlined in the Terms of Reference was to streamline and link the three processes that together provide the capabilities required by the warfighter on time, at a reasonable cost, and in the quantities needed to accomplish the mission. A copy of the Terms of Reference (TOR) is provided at Tab A
.
In response to this tasking, the Defense Business Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) established a Task Group to conduct the review chaired by Major General Arnold L. Punaro, USMC (Ret) with Mr. William R. Phillips; Dr. Dov S. Zakheim; General Michael P.C. Carns, USAF (Ret); Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN (Ret); and General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret). Colonel John P. Curran, USA, served as the Task Group Senior Military Assistant.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
IPMR Implementation Guide Jan 242013.pdf
  
Contracting; Engineering; Program ManagementDoDLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
DoD 2014 QDR.pdf
  
Air Force; Army; DoD; NavyReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Milestone Info 15 April 2016.pptx
  
Cybersecurity; Engineering; Information Technology; Test and EvaluationDoDLearning MaterialDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
Sources for this briefing are from:-DoD Instruction 5000.02-Operation of the Defense Acquisition System, January 7, 2015-Changes Directed by National Defense Authorization Act for FY2016
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
DoD Issuances-The Official DoD Website for DoD Issuances.aspx
  
DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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.
5/18/2017 7:47 PM
Dr. Ashton B. Carter Former Secretary of Defense.aspx
  
ReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
DoD Biography
PM
5/18/2017 7:48 PM
Dr. Carter s Memorandum - Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending.aspx
  
ReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
The 28 Jun 10 USD AT&L memo to all DoD acquisition professionals entitled “Better Buying Power: Mandate for Restoring Affordability and Productivity in Defense Spending”, reiterated the department’s commitment to supporting our forces at war and reforming the acquisition system, including continued implementation of the 2009 Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act, and goes on to outlines direction on another important departmental priority, namely “delivering better value to the taxpayer and improving the way the Department does business.” Specific objectives contained in the memo include:
5/18/2017 7:48 PM
Non DODIIC IMD production waiver request.docx
  
DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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. IMD includes Signatures, Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming, Order Of Battle, Foreign Systems Characteristics & Performance data, and GEOINT as a minimum.
These are additional documents that could not be added to the Life-cycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP)development and drafting Guidebook page. Reference Link: Additional Documents for Life-cycle Mission Data Plan Guidebook (https://www1.dev.dau.mil/cop/pm/DAU Sponsored Documents/LMDP Guidebook v3.1.pdf3&lang=en-US)
5/31/2017 7:39 PM
LMDP Guidebook v3.1.pdf
  
Contracting; Engineering; Information Technology; Intelligence Support; Program Management; Test and EvaluationAir Force; DoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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:http://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/imdc/lmdpPublicShare/default.aspx
(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: IMDC_LMDP_support@dodiis.mil
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 to:IMDC_LMDP_support@dodiis.mil. 
File

LMDP_Guidebook_v3 1.pdf
LMDP_Template_v3.1.docx
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
6/1/2017 10:13 PM
LMDP Template v3.1.docx
  
Engineering; Intelligence SupportDoDReferenceDoD-Level Policies and Guidance
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:http://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/imdc/lmdpPublicShare/default.aspx
(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: IMDC_LMDP_support@dodiis.mil
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 to:IMDC_LMDP_support@dodiis.mil. 
File

LMDP_Guidebook_v3 1.pdf
LMDP_Template_v3.1.docx
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
6/1/2017 10:13 PM
1 - 30Next