|  | | Reference | A collection of useful information, tools and notes.
bv | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
| | | Reference | Mission Facilitate the collection, archiving, dissemination and analysis of relevant Army acquisition process Lessons Learned (LL) from After Action Reviews (AARs), existing LL studies, and programmatic histories of Army programs to develop best practices and influence strategic acquisition decisions. Focus On 8 January 2012, ASA(ALT) directed AMSAA to create a center to collect, archive, analyze, and disseminate Army lessons learned and develop best practices. Acquisition Lessons Learned (ALL) is a … Vehicle for maintaining acquisition experiences, such as program lessons learned and programmatic histories, etc. Web-based relational database of acquisition program information for Army programs of record. Capability to conduct analysis. Resource for building cases to influence policy and procedure. ALL provides Program Executive Offices and Program Managers access to the Army Acquisition Lessons Learned Portal (ALLP) containing practical lessons learned, best practices, and forums for idea exchange and question resolution. ALL's acquisition process impact studies assist Army leadership (HQDA) to address strategic questions involving policy, regulation, and law implications. Army laboratory and testing agencies gain insight and share experiences to perform Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) risk assessments, conduct testing, promote partnerships, and satisfy compressed timelines. The ALLP provides an authoritative source for Army acquisition lessons learned. Lessons can be entered by anyone, including contractors. Lesson may be submitted anonymously and may also be imparted to the ALL Team by mail, e-mail, or phone. Other ALLP knowledge management, collaboration, and analysis services, such as viewing and searching lessons submitted by others, participating in forum discussions, referencing acquisition case histories, and more, is government restricted. Portal URL: https://allp.amsaa.army.mil. AMSAA's Soldier focus, organizational independence, and materiel LL and acquisition analysis experience make it well suited to perform this Acquisition Lessons Learned mission. bv | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
|  | | Reference | Capability Production Document (CPD) Writer’s Guide Version 1.5, 16 June 2009.
Capability Production Document (CPD) Writer’s Guide Version 1.5, 16 June 2009. | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
|  | | Reference | | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
| | | Reference | Purpose
The intent of this document is to summarize lessons learned and best practices as a result of reviewing 18-plus programs. These lessons learned are intended to assist Program Managers and their Engineering staffs with best practices that have proven successful over the years to ensure that reliability is designed into programs early in the acquisition cycle. All aspects of Reliability design were not addressed by these case studies, and it is not intended to circumvent or replace good systems engineering processes. Rather, the best practices and lessons learned contained herein are a compilation of reliability design activities that are most often overlooked, skipped, or short-changed in the interest of reducing cost or schedule. Adherence to these activities combined with solid system engineering processes has proven to be invaluable in helping programs through the major Milestones (MS A, B, and C) of the DoD Acquisition System.
DAU offers a number of training opportunities on the subjects covered in this brochure, including (but not limited to):
CLE 301 Reliability & Maintainability
CLL 007 Lead-Free Electronics Impact on DoD Programs
CLL 012 Supportability Analysis (includes FMECA)
CLL 032 Preventing Counterfeit Parts from Entering the DoD Supply Chain
CLL 062 Counterfeit Prevention Awareness
CLL 201 Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages (DMSMS) Fundamentals
CLL 202 Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages (DMSMS) Executive Overview
CLL 206 Introduction to Parts Management
CLM 017 Risk Management
LOG 103 Reliability, Availability & Maintainability
LOG 211 Supportability Analysis (includes FMECA) | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
| | | Example | Great quick aid to understanding and creating Program Framing Assumptions.Attached paper is a good short introduction to the concept of Framing Assumptions, with examples of both good and bad FAs.
bv | 5/18/2017 7:43 PM | |
| | | Reference | Guidance for using Overarching Integrated Product Teams (OIPTs) and Working Integrated Product Teams (WIPTs) in DoD acquisition, includes various OSD and USD(A&T) memos, IPT Rules of the Road, and the transcript of an instructional video. (Volume II is accessible via the weblink provided.) This is the ''IPT Bible'' provided by USD(AR), giving the definitive guidance for IPTs on the government side. Be forewarned that there are IPTs on the industry side and bridging the government-industry program-level partnership that may operate quite differently. (N.b.: The version of ''Rules of the Road'' contained herein is the original version from 1995; the updated 1999 version is available as a separate contribution.) Please Note: The attached document mentions the DoDD 5000.1. The DoDD 5000.1 has been revised and renamed to DoDD 5000.01 and certified as current as of November 20, 2007 and can be found at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500001p.pdfThe attached document also mentions the DoDI 5000.2-R. The DoDI 5000.2-R has been revised and renamed to DoDI 5000.02 and is dated 8 December 2008 and can be found at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.pdf | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | The Joint Operating Environment document is intended to inform joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense with a perspective on future trends, potential shocks, military implications, as well as the implications of these issues for the future joint force commander. This document is speculative in nature and does not necessarily represent a USJFCOM or Department of Defense position on any issue. Rather, it is intended to serve as an intellectual ?starting line? for discussions about the structure of the future security environment. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Reference | Link to the 2014 Report on the Performance of the Defense Acquisition System | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Reference | Interesting reading -- Mr Frank Kendall's USD(AT&L) letter to Congress re: Improvements in Defense Acquisition dtd 13 Jun 2014 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | by Col. Michael A. Micucci, USMC
Published in Defense AT&L Magazine: March-April 2009 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Presentation | Report to Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Congressional Budget Office report dated June 2011.
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study, prepared at the request of the SenateCommittee on the Budget, projects the costs of the Department of Defense’s plan for nationaldefense for the years 2012 to 2030. The study is the latest in an annual series that CBO haspublished for the past eight years. In particular, it updates the projections contained in CBO’sLong-Term Implications of the Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Budget, published in February 2011.In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, this study makesno recommendations. A future CBO study will examine the implications that possible constraintson defense budgets might have for the future size, composition, and capabilities of themilitary services.... | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by Ronald O'Rourke is dated March 13, 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | The Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by Ronald O'Rourke is dated March 13, 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by Ronald O'Rourke is dated March 15, 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by Andrew Feickert is dated February 4, 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report is dated March 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Report of the Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives on H.R. 1060 together with Additional and Dissenting Views.
June 7, 2013 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Report to Congressional Defense Committees is dated June 2013.
This report is being provided to the Congressional Defense Committees as directed in Public Law 112-239, Section 155, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Congressional Research Service (CRS) report dated August 13, 2013 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress by Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs.This Congressional Research Service report is dated October 17, 2013 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Congress of the United States Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report: An analysis of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2014 Shipbuilding Plan dated October 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report: National Security Strategy: Mandates, Execution to Date, and Issues for Congress by Catherine Dale, Specialist in International Security, is dated August 6, 2013. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Fact Sheet: FY14 NDAA SummaryHighlights of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2014 is the key mechanism to provide necessary authorities and funding for America’s military. This is the fifty-second consecutive NDAA. The legislation meets Chairman McKeon’s goal of providing for a strong defense in an era of uncertain and declining resources. The total funding authorized reflects the will of the House to provide our troops the resources they need to meet a dangerous world. However, Chairman McKeon also recognizes that, more than ever, the impacts of rapid defense cuts, FY13 sequestration, and the prospect of future sequester cuts in the years to come, will force our warfighters to be not only keen stewards of our national security, but to maximize value for every taxpayer dollar. To that end, this legislation supports and protects our warfighters and their families; addresses ongoing and emerging conflicts with resolve and accountability; protects America today while preparing for future threats; and finally controls costs while making wise choices with restrained resources. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Congressional Research ServiceTrends in Discretionary SpendingD. Andrew Austin, Analyst in Economic PolicyjANUARY 16, 2014 | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | by Pat TowellSpecialist in U.S. Defense Policy and BudgetCongressional Research Service (CRS)December 4, 2015Following are selected highlights of the versions of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that were passed by the House of Representatives, passed by the Senate and signed by the President on November 25, 2015 (P.L. 114-92 ).... | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Reference | May 12, 2016 Press Release, United States Commitee on Armed Services.Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Chairman and Ranking Mmber of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today announced details of the committee’s markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The committee on Thursday voted, 23-3, to report the bill, which authorizes $602 billion in funding for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | The Congressional Budget Office is required by law to issue a report by August 15 of each year that provides estimates of the caps on discretionary budget authority in effect for each fiscal year through 2021.1 CBO has slightly revised its estimates of the caps for 2016 since it issued its previous report on the topic in December 2015. In that earlier report, CBO estimated that the appropriations for 2016 did not exceed the caps; CBO's assessment remains unchanged—the discretionary appropriations provided to date for 2016 do not exceed the caps, and thus, by CBO's estimates, a further sequestration (or cancellation of budgetary resources) will not be required as a result of appropriation action this year.. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
| | | Learning Material | Congressional Research Service (CRS)Navy Force Structure: A Bigger Fleet? Background and Issues for CongressRonald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval AffairsNovember 9, 2016This report presents background information and potential issues for Congress on the question of whether to increase the Navy’s force-level goal (i.e., the planned size of the Navy) to something more than the current goal of 308 ships. Some observers have advocated adopting a new a force-level goal of about 350 ships.The issue for Congress is whether to increase the planned size of the Navy to something more than 308 ships, and if so, what the new force-level goal should be.1 Congress’s decisions on this issue could substantially affect Navy capabilities and funding requirements and the shipbuilding industrial base.There have also been proposals in recent years for future Navy fleets of less than 308 ships. Several of these proposals are summarized in another CRS report that provides an overview discussion of Navy force structure and shipbuilding plans.2 This other CRS report also summarizes current legislative activity relating to Navy force structure and shipbuilding. Several additional CRS reports discuss individual Navy shipbuilding programs.
Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. | 5/18/2017 7:45 PM | |
