Acquisition Strategy - International Considerations Job Support Tool (JST)
The Acquisition Strategy is the Program Managers guiding document for program execution across the entire program life cycle. It is a comprehensive, integrated strategy that identifies the acquisition approach and key framing assumptions, and describes the business, technical, and support strategies that the Program Manager will employ to achieve program objectives and manage program risks. The strategy evolves over time and should be periodically updated to reflect the current status and desired goals of the program. The Acquisition Strategy defines the relationship between the acquisition phases and work efforts, and key program events such as decision points and reviews. 10 USC 2431a (subparagraph (c)(2)(G)) and 10 USC 2350a (para (e)) and corresponding DoDI 5000.02 policy establish a requirement that a program’s initial Acquisition Strategy include an International Involvement section which addresses the International Acquisition and Exportability (IA&E) aspects of the program throughout its life-cycle. Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) Chapter 1 provides best practice guidance regarding development of an Acquisition Strategy International Involvement Section, including updates thereto, for Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) review at each Milestone.
This JST is organized as follows: Section 1 – Fundamental Policies, Section 2 – Analysis and Evaluation, Section 3 – Best Practices, and Section 4 – Documentation of Results. Sections 1 through 3 provide detailed guidance on how to develop an International Involvement section while Section 4 discusses the required content of the International Involvement section of a program’s Acquisition Strategy. Once completed, the International Involvement section describes the main international considerations of a program’s Acquisition Strategy: Interoperability, International Aspects of Program Protection, Foreign Industry Participation, International Cooperative Program (ICP) Potential, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Potential, and Other Business Strategy Considerations.
Relationship to Other JSTs
DAG Chapter 1 (paragraph 220.127.116.11) recommends that the Program Manager conduct an International Acquisition and Exportability (IA&E) Assessment to collect information and assess factors that may affect potential international involvement in a program in order to identify potential existing foreign solutions, ICP opportunities, foreign technology, or potential for future foreign sales. Accordingly, this JST builds upon and, where applicable, references the IA&E Assessment JST.
Section 1 – Fundamental Policies
A. Acquisition Strategy General Policy
1. Statutory Requirements
There shall be an acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program (MDAP), each major automated information system (MAIS), and each major system approved by a milestone decision authority. For each acquisition strategy, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment, or the milestone decision authority, when the milestone decision authority is the service acquisition executive of the military department that is managing the program, is responsible for issuing and maintaining the requirements for “G. International involvement, including foreign military sales and cooperative opportunities.” (FY 2016 NDAA changes incorporated into 10 USC 2431a.).
2. DoD Policy Requirements
DoDI 5000.02 requires that acquisition strategies to reflect the Program Manager’s understanding of opportunities in the domestic and international markets, foreign disclosure, exportability, technology transfer, and security requirements. (DoDI 5000.02. Enclosure 2, paragraph 6.a.(1), page 88). Acquisition Strategies should be prepared using the sample outline dated 20 Apr 2011 with International Involvement to be discussed in section 10, including Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TSFD), program protection, and defense exportability considerations.
B. Interoperability Policy
Refer to Section 1.A. of the IA&E Assessment JST for relevant policies.
C. Program Protection Policy
Refer to Section 1.B. of the IA&E Assessment JST for relevant policies.
D. Foreign Industry Participation Policy
1. Promoting a Competitive Environment
Program Managers shall take all necessary actions to promote a competitive environment, including the consideration of alternative systems to meet stated mission needs; structuring Science and Technology (S&T) investments and acquisition strategies to ensure the availability of competitive suppliers throughout a program's life, and for future programs; ensuring that prime contractors foster effective competition for major and critical products and technologies; and ensuring that qualified international sources are permitted to compete. (DoDD 5000.01, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.1.3, page 5). These efforts should be pursued on all DoD acquisition programs at all Acquisition Category (ACAT) levels, not just programs that have international (ICP and/or FMS) involvement.
2. National Security Considerations
Foreign industry participation in a DoD acquisition program can be restricted due to national security considerations
- The Secretary of Defense can restrict acquisition to domestic sources when considered necessary for national defense (DFARS 225.872-1(c))
- Classified Military Information is a national security asset that shall be protected and shall be shared with foreign governments only when there is a clearly defined benefit to the DoD (DoDD 5230.11 paragraph 4.1) and (DFARS 225.872-2)(a)(1))
Full and open competition need not be provided for U.S. defense mobilization base requirements purchased under the authority of FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(i), except for quantities in excess of that required to maintain the defense mobilization base. This restriction does not apply to Canadian planned producers (DFARS 225.872-2(a)(2))
3. Domestic Preference Requirements
DoD does not apply Buy American Act provisions to the acquisition of qualifying country end products from countries that have established Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) international agreements. However, there is a wide variety of domestic preference legislation that may restrict procurements in specific areas as implemented through DFARS provisions. The Defense Pricing and Contracting (DPC) CPIC web site contains a summary of these restrictions.
E. International Cooperation Policy
1. Statutory Requirements
Cooperative opportunities for all ACAT level programs must be assessed at an early point during DoD’s formal development review process (normally at the first acquisition decision milestone) in accordance with 10 USC 2350(a)(e). The results of this assessment should be addressed in the program’s Acquisition Strategy International Involvement section in accordance with 10 USC 2431a.(c)(2)(g) and DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 1, Table 2, page 47).
2. DoD Policy Requirements
International cooperative development programs are preferred over a joint or DoD Component unique program (DoDD 5000.01, Enclosure 1, paragraph E1.1.18, page 8). Where appropriate, PMs should pursue cooperative opportunities and international involvement throughout the life cycle to enhance cooperation and improve interoperability (DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, paragraph 7.a, page 92).
F. Foreign Sales Policy
1. Statutory Requirements
Acquisition Strategies for MDAP and MAIS programs shall where appropriate consider international involvement, including FMS as well as cooperative opportunities (10 USC 2431a.(c)(2)(g)).
2. DoD Policy Requirements
The Acquisition Strategy sample outline (paragraph 10.3) requires an explanation of the potential or plans for FMS and/or Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) and the potential impact upon program costs due to program protection measures as well as the need to assess and, if applicable, design and develop defense exportability features for one or more exportable versions of the system. Any FMS or DCS of major defense equipment prior to successful completion of operational test and evaluation requires a USD(A&S) approved waiver (i.e., a Yockey Waiver). (DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 2, paragraph 7.c, page 92) and (SAMM C18.104.22.168.).
G. Other Business Strategy-Related Policies
1. Competition in ICPs
The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) provides an exception to the full and open competition requirement for ICP international agreements (FAR 6.302-4 and DFARS 206.302-4). Directed source subcontracting is authorized when addressed in an ICP international agreement with NATO (DFARS 225.871-5).
2. Competition in FMS
Customer nations can request a specific contractor and/or subcontractor or that competition be limited to specific contractors in the Letter of Request (LOR) or other written request (SAMM Chapter 6 (FMS Case Implementation and Execution), C.6.3.4). FAR 6.3 and DFARS 225.7300 provide guidance to DoD Contracting Officers regarding non-competitive contracting for FMS Letters of Offer and Acceptance (LOAs).
3. Rights in Technical Data
A government purpose is defined as any activity in which the USG is a party, including cooperative agreements with international or multi-national defense organizations, or sales or transfers by the USG to foreign governments or international organizations. Government purposes include competitive procurement, but do not include the rights to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose technical data for commercial purposes or authorize others to do so. (DFARS 252.227.7013)
Section 2 – Analysis and Evaluation
1. Implementing Interoperability Requirements
Use the results from Section 2.A. (Determining Interoperability Requirements) of the IA&E Assessment JST to determine interoperability requirements.
Determine the allied and friendly nation interoperability requirements that have been established by the user community. Address the projected U.S., International Organization (NATO, etc.), and allied/friendly nation resource implications, cost estimates, and budgeting efforts, as applicable, that are needed to achieve required/desired interoperability outcomes during system design and development.
2. Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
Have applicable International Standardization Agreements (ISA) been identified and considered in developing contract specifications?
Does the Systems Engineering (SE) approach in the Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) adequately address the program’s international interoperability objectives and desired outcomes?
How will international interoperability requirements be addressed in the contracting process?
B. International Aspects of Program Protection
1. Determining Program Protection Impacts
Use the results from Section 2.B. (Program Protection Considerations) of the IA&E Assessment JST to address the TSFD/export control, program protection, and defense exportability aspects in areas such as: a) foreign industry participation; b) international cooperation potential; and/or c) foreign sales potential.
Identify the international aspects of program protection that must be addressed in the Program Protection Plan (PPP) in areas such as: Defense Exportability Features (DEF) design and development, SE and Systems Security Engineering (SSE) program protection tradeoff analyses in the SEP, and specific program protection measures (e.g., information security, Anti-Tamper (AT), and Trusted System Networks (TSN)) needed to facilitate international involvement.
Engage with the program’s Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO) and DoD Component International Program Organization (IPO) disclosure personnel to identify/update relevant policies and precedent-setting TSFD decisions related to the program/system.
Engage with the applicable OSD TSFD process owners to identify/update:
- Areas where TSFD-required differential capabilities or additional AT measures would likely be required
- Areas where foreign government and/or industry involvement would likely not be authorized by TSFD and/or export control authorities
- Areas where foreign government and/or industry participation would likely be authorized from a TSFD and export control decision-making perspective
Apply for USD/A&S DEF pilot program funding through the DoD Component POC or seek other funding to conduct a DEF feasibility study to evaluate areas such as:
- DEF design and development alternatives that would adequately address key TSFD and program protection considerations
- Potential costs of developing exportable configuration(s) compared to the economic benefits of foreign industry participation, international cooperation, and/or future foreign sales
Incorporate PPP-recommended system design requirements including DEF, if advisable, into the program’s acquisition and contracting strategy in consultation with the program’s SE and SSE personnel, program FDO, DoD Component IPO, and applicable TSFD process owners.
Use the Defense Exportability Integration (DEI) JST for suggestions on how to execute program-specific DEF activities that will help achieve the program’s overall international involvement goals and objectives.
2. Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
What sensitive program information, Critical Program Information (CPI) and/or mission-critical functions and components will likely be included in the system design and documentation efforts?
What system characteristics and/or configuration items may require a DEF effort to achieve program international involvement goals and objectives?
What configuration items may require development of additional program protection measures to facilitate the various aspects of international involvement under consideration?
C. Determining the Extent of Foreign Industry Participation
1. DoD Programs with No Involvement by Other Governments
Conduct an analysis of the program to determine if foreign industry should be allowed to compete at the prime contractor level to derive competition benefits considering the following:
- Would sensitive, classified U.S.-only TSFD information (e.g., Low Observable/Counter Low Observable (LO/CLO), Anti-Tamper (AT), Communications Security (COMSEC)) need to be transferred to foreign companies either to submit proposals or perform contractual obligations? A positive answer would indicate that foreign companies would not be able to compete at the prime contract level
- The degree and effect of industrial base impact and/or foreign dependency that would result across the program’s life cycle, and whether this could be mitigated through DoD technical data rights acquisition and/or U.S. industry licensing arrangements with prospective foreign prime contractors
- Competition at the prime contractor level is often restricted to U.S. industry sources for national security and other practical considerations. In such situations, the benefits of foreign competition can often be achieved through U.S. and foreign industry teaming arrangements of various types.
For DoD programs where foreign prime contractors are not permitted, consult with the program’s SE and SSE, personnel, program FDO, DoD Component IPO, and applicable TSFD process owners to assess the following factors and provide guidance to prospective U.S. prime contractors, as appropriate, through the DoD Contracting Officer during the contracting process:
- Defining and establishing USG/DoD TSFD and export control restrictions that would prevent potential foreign subcontracts or suppliers from participating in specific areas
- Defining and establishing areas where no USG/DoD TSFD or export control restrictions exist to facilitate maximum subcontractor and supplier competition by prospective U.S. prime contractors
- Establishing a methodology within the program’s overall acquisition and contracting processes whereby prospective U.S. prime contractors can ask questions and obtain responses about existing USG/DoD TSFD and export control policy guidance pertaining to potential foreign subcontractors or suppliers
- Establishing Request for Proposal (RFP) provisions that require prospective U.S. prime contractors to obtain USG/DoD TSFD approvals and export authorizations and consider U.S. domestic preference legislation applicable to the program for prospective foreign subcontractors and suppliers prior to submitting their proposals
- Evaluating proposals from prospective U.S. prime contractors to ensure they have obtained applicable USG export authorizations and domestic preference deviations/waivers for any planned foreign subcontracts and/or suppliers
2. DoD Program ICP Arrangements with Other Governments
While many of the same principles and practices outlined above also apply to ICPs, the dynamics of industrial participation by foreign industry under contracts awarded by DoD and/or partner nations to implement ICP international agreements (IAs) are fundamentally different. ICP IA-related contracts are funded by the U.S. and partner nations based on mutual cost sharing arrangements in the ICP IA. The fact that ICP IAs include U.S. and partner nation funding creates explicit and implicit expectations for foreign industry participation in ICP IA-related contracts. Moreover, ICP IA-related contracts may contain unique provisions based on the ICP IA-related provisions of the FAR/DFARS described in Section 1.G. above.
Negotiated and signed ICP IAs must be carefully analyzed to identify any provisions which govern or influence industrial participation arrangements. Based on the terms of the ICP IA and U.S./foreign partner TSFD/export control policies and authorizations, assess the following areas and, as appropriate, reflect them in ICP IA-related Requests for Information (RFIs), RFPs, prime contracts, and subcontracting/supplier arrangements established by U.S. and foreign partner industry:
- Determine if the ICP IA restricts industrial participation to the partner nations’ industry
- Determine if the ICP IA contains a mutually agreed approach regarding U.S. and foreign government and partner industry participation arrangements in prime contract solicitation and award and/or subcontractor/supplier arrangements
- Define and establish areas where USG/DoD and foreign partner TSFD or export control policies permit U.S. and foreign partner industry cooperation to facilitate maximum subcontractor and supplier competition and/or partnering arrangements in ICP-IA related contracts and subcontracts
- Define and establish areas where USG/DoD and foreign partner TSFD or export control policies forbid or restrict U.S. and foreign partner industry cooperation in ICP-IA related contracts and subcontracts
Establish contractual requirements, including prime contractor development and maintenance of a Technology Release Roadmap (TRR) for large programs, to plan, organize, and monitor key TSFD and export control activities.
3. DoD Program FMS or FMS/DCS Hybrid Arrangements with Other Governments
While many of the same principles and practices outlined above apply, the dynamics of industrial participation by foreign industry under contracts awarded by DoD to implement FMS or FMS/DCS hybrid acquisition efforts are also fundamentally different. FMS-related procurements may contain unique aspects based on DFARS Subpart 225.73, Acquisitions for Foreign Military Sales to include competition requirements and program offsets agreed to by U.S. industry.
Conduct an analysis of signed FMS LOAs to identify any provisions which govern or influence industrial participation. Based on the terms of the FMS LOA, and U.S. TSFD/export control policies and authorizations, assess the following areas and reflect the result in FMS LOA-related RFIs, RFPs, prime contracts, and subcontracting/supplier arrangements established by U.S. and foreign customer industry:
- Determine if the FMS customer has requested a sole source procurement
- Define and establish areas where USG/DoD TSFD or export control policies would limit foreign industry participation as part of a direct offset
Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
What are the areas of potential international contracting envisioned by the program: a) DoD contracts with no involvement by other governments; b) ICP-IA related contracts; and/or, c) FMS LOA-related contracts? (Note: contracting in all three areas on a single program is possible and should be considered in the evaluation and analysis of this area.)
What types of program protection measures are needed to implement potential foreign industry participation in the areas of potential international contracting envisioned by the program?
What are the key TSFD and export control considerations that could influence potential foreign industry participation in the areas of potential international contracting envisioned by the program?
What types of unique acquisition and contract policy considerations could impact various aspects of the DoD contracting process in the areas of potential international contracting envisioned by the program?
D. International Cooperative Program (ICP) Potential
1. Determining International Cooperation Approach
Use the results from Section 2.C. (Identifying Cooperative Opportunities) of the IA&E Assessment JST to develop recommendations in areas such as: a) identifying foreign equipment and/or acquisition programs that might meet DoD requirements; b) identifying relevant foreign technology that might reduce program risk; and, c) identifying potential partner countries with similar operational requirements or acquisition plans.
Determine the form(s) of potential international cooperation appropriate for the program, in conjunction the DoD Component IPO and A&S/International Cooperation (IC) subject matter experts, considering the following options (Note: these options are not mutually exclusive and may be pursued in parallel):
- Science and Technology (S&T) and/or Research and Development (R&D) exchanges on a quid-pro-quo basis with other countries under the terms of a Data Exchange Annex (DEA) or Information Exchange Annex (IEA)
- Cooperative S&T or R&D projects under the terms of a Master RDT&E Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and associated Project Agreement/Annex (PA)
- System-level cooperation under a program-specific MOU either on a part of the system or the entire system. (Note: agreements for cooperation of a part of the system are easier to establish, can allow access to critical technology, and can bring partners into a program early to facilitate future commitment to procurement)
Use the International Cooperative Programs (ICPs) JST for suggestions on how to establish an ICP and required international agreements to achieve the program’s international involvement goals and objectives in this area.
2. Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
Specific questions from 10 USC 2350(a)(e) “Cooperative Opportunities” that should be addressed in the Acquisition Strategy International Involvement section include:
- Is a project similar to the one under consideration by the DoD in development or production by any member of NATO, a NATO organization, a major non-NATO ally, or any other friendly foreign country?
- If a project similar to the one under consideration by the DoD is in development or production could the project satisfy or be modified to satisfy the DoD requirements?
- What are the advantages and disadvantages with regard to program timing, developmental and life cycle costs, technology sharing, and Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI) of seeking to structure a cooperative development program with one or more countries or NATO organizations?
Broader questions that should be addressed in the Acquisition Strategy International Involvement section include:
- What forms of international cooperation could help achieve the program’s international involvement goals and objectives?
- What types of existing ICP IAs should be used, or new ICP IAs established, to execute the international involvement aspects of the program’s acquisition strategy?
- Does the program have sufficient information to compare the potential or planned ICP economic benefits to projected program costs in program protection and exportability features areas? If not, what is needed, and when will it be available to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)?
- How should the program use potential ICP participation by other nations at higher levels (PEO, DoD Component, OSD) to assess the overall quantitative and qualitative costs/benefits of potential ICP arrangements in political/military, operational, and industrial aspects that are difficult to quantify?
E. Foreign Sales Potential
1. Determining Foreign Sales Approach
Use the results of Section 2.D. (Assessing International Markets) of the IA&E Assessment JST for suggestions on how to conduct/update the program’s international market assessment.
Incorporate a rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate of potential ICP, FMS, and DCS foreign sales quantities, as applicable, into the International Involvement section of the program’s Acquisition Strategy, and update this ROM estimate as additional information becomes available.
Use the ROM estimate of foreign sales quantities to evaluate and analyze the potential economic benefits of the foreign sales aspects of international involvement throughout the program’s life-cycle.
For programs in EMD, P&D, or O&S phases, use the FMS Systems Acquisition JST for suggestions on how to establish foreign sales arrangements to achieve the program’s international involvement goals and objectives in this area.
2. Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
Does the program have sufficient information to compare the potential or planned foreign sales (FMS, DCS, Hybrid) economic benefits to projected program costs in program protection and exportability features areas? If not, what is needed, and when will it be available to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)?
How should the program use its foreign sales estimates at higher levels (PEO, DoD Component, OSD) to assess the overall quantitative and qualitative costs/benefits of potential foreign sales in various forms (FMS, DCS, Hybrid), including potential political/military, operational, and industrial aspects that are difficult to quantify?
F. Other International Business Strategy Aspects
1. Cross Domain Considerations
a. Technical Data Rights Strategy
Ensure the program’s technical data rights strategy and contracting efforts are consistent with the program’s planned level of international involvement.
b. Product Support Strategy
If international involvement in the program is likely, structure the product support strategy such that foreign partner/customer countries can use the same sustainment approach as the DoD noting USG/DoD TSFD/export control policy guidance may require other nations’ participation in some/all aspects of DoD’s planned product support arrangements.
c. Operator and Maintenance Training Strategy
If international involvement in the program is likely, when planning the program’s training strategy consider TSFD effects on training system configurations and documentation. Also consider how the DoD training capacity could be expanded to meet foreign demands.
2. Analysis & Evaluation -- Key Areas
What type of government data rights should be acquired to execute the planned international cooperation and defense sales? How will the international aspects of technical data rights acquisition be addressed in the contracting process?
Will the planned product support strategy support foreign partner/customer needs as well as support TSFD policy guidance? How will international product support considerations be addressed in the contracting process?
Will the planned operator and maintenance training strategy and its capacity (facilities and equipment) be able to meet the foreign partner or customer needs? If not, could its capacity be expanded through foreign funding?
Section 3 – Best Practices
U.S. law and DoD policy require PMO consideration and documentation of the international acquisition aspects of a program in the development and coordination of a program’s Acquisition Strategy. DAG Chapter 1 (paragraph 22.214.171.124) recommends that programs in the pre-Material Solution Analysis (MSA) phase conduct an initial IA&E Assessment to identify potential existing foreign solutions, ICP opportunities, foreign technology, or potential for future foreign sales. Please refer to the IA&E Assessment JST for suggestions on conducting this assessment and, if not already accomplished, use the IA&E Assessment JST as a guide to conduct a preliminary assessment of the key international factors that should be considered in developing the program’s Acquisition Strategy.
Obtaining Subject Matter Expertise
Depending on the potential scope of the international involvement envisioned, the PMO should consider obtaining subject matter expertise on the various aspects of IA&E from the DoD Science and Technology (S&T) community, TSFD community, intelligence community, DoD Component International Program Office (IPO), U.S. industry, and any other sources in order to develop a comprehensive, high-quality Acquisition Strategy International Involvement section for their program. For Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) with the potential for substantial international involvement, A&S International Cooperation and Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) staff members can help PMOs identify experts in pertinent IA&E areas with robust knowledge and encourage their participation in the International Involvement section’s development and coordination.
The following key areas – which often pose the most significant international challenges in developing a program’s acquisition strategy – should be thoroughly considered in the development of the program’s International Involvement section:
- Should foreign industry be allowed to compete for DoD prime contracts and/or subcontracts to promote greater competition? U.S. law and contract policy strongly advocates competition while TSFD/export control and program protection considerations often forbid or restrict foreign industry participation. The divergence between these two areas of U.S. law and policy often pose numerous challenges at the program level.
- Is a full system-level ICP feasible or advisable? If not, programs should explore the use of a cooperative opportunities strategy that involves cooperation in related S&T or R&D areas and/or on a piece of a program. This approach can both provide access to foreign technology and encourage other countries to become part of (and potentially committed to) a program on a smaller scale early in development. Early international involvement in programs usually enhances the probability of future foreign acquisition of the system, providing economy of scale advantages to DoD and partner/customer nations.
- Should the program apply for A&S/IC Defense Exportability Features (DEF) pilot program funding or seek other DEF funding sources early in development? Pursuing early DEF design and development efforts requires extra effort, even if the program is successful in obtaining the A&S/IC and industry funding that the DEF pilot program provides. However, access to how other programs are dealing with similar exportability issues as well as early engagement with the USG/DoD TSFD/export control community to establish releasability guidance and exportable program protection measures for the system normally pay big dividends during the EMD phase and the rest of the program’s life-cycle.
Section 4 – Documentation of Results
A&S/IC and OASD(R&E) review PMOs’ Acquisition Strategies and Program Protection Plans (PPPs) for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated Information Systems (MAIS) to assess programs’ international involvement and the international aspects of program protection. A&S-level review focuses on the following:
- Has cooperative development been considered?
- What is being done to address coalition interoperability?
- Has DEF Pilot Program participation been considered?
- Have ongoing and potential FMS and DCS programs been fully and accurately summarized?
- Is there consistency with other documents (JCIDS documents, Program Protection Plan, etc.)?
- Has international involvement been critically considered as means to provide current and future benefits to the program?
The Acquisition Strategy and Coalition Interoperability Templates issued by the A&S staff in the 2011 timeframe provide guidance regarding how International Involvement should be addressed in section 10. This guidance is summarized as follows.
10. International Involvement
10.1. Indicate any limitations on foreign contractors being allowed to participate at the prime contractor level.
10.2. International Cooperation.
10.2.1. Summarize any plans for cooperative development with foreign governments or cognizant organizations. List the MOAs in place and identify the contracting activities.
10.2.2. Summarize plans to increase the opportunity for coalition interoperability as part of the developing DoD program.
10.2.3. Employ the A&S-developed template (included as an attachment to this JST) to provide a coalition interoperability section in the Acquisition Strategy. Using the template will satisfy the cooperative opportunities document requirement of 10 USC 2350a.
10.3. Foreign Military Sales. Specify the potential or plans for Foreign Military and/or Direct Commercial Sale and the impact upon program cost due to program protection and exportability features.
Note: If you would like to provide feedback on this JST, have ideas on how the JST could be improved, have questions on this JST, or would like advice on how to use this JST in the workplace, please send an email to InternationalHelp@dau.mil.
Attachment 1 - Coalition Interoperability Section Template
Per 10 USC 2350a, cooperative opportunities are pursued to improve, through the application of emerging technology, the conventional defense capabilities of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the common conventional defense capabilities of the United States and a specified country (or countries) or organization.
A coalition interoperability assessment shall address the following:
- Identify needs for system or subsystems to be interoperable with international partners referred to in subsection (a)(2).
- Indicate whether or not a similar project in development or production by the Department of Defense provides Interoperability with coalition partners’ systems that military operations rely upon and should be maintained in the new program.
- Identify any relevant cooperative work already conducted or under current collaboration with foreign governments and organizations in subsection (a)(2) (including at subcomponent levels) that can be utilized as a basis for cooperation in the new development or production program.
- Determine if the capability would be enhanced by engaging critical global or regional partners in the development or production of the system for which new cooperative relationships are needed.
- Assure that stated interoperability requirements for coalition operations and relevant capacity building (e.g., IPLs, JROC decisions, objective and threshold requirements in JCIDS documents, concept decisions or Analyses of Alternatives) of the Services, regional and functional combatant commanders, and Combat Support Agencies are met or risks mitigated in the program.
- Explain how current political and strategic guidance for cooperation affects opportunities for cooperative development of the capability with coalition partners (QDR, GEF, NSS, NSPDs, etc.).
- Investigate whether projects similar to the one under consideration by the Department of Defense is in development or production by one or more countries and organizations referred to in subsection (a)(2),
- Complete a comprehensive review of related ongoing acquisition programs in allied nations (consult with organizations such as the Service International Programs Offices (IPOs) for assistance)
- Concept Refinement – Investigate whether allies and friendly nations are also defining requirements for a comparable capability
- Technology Demonstrations and System Development and Demonstration – Investigate foreign government and industry R&D investments in comparable capability areas
- Production and Deployment – Evaluate potential for procurement of a developed item from foreign sources when developed or fielded items meet or can be modified to meet US requirements
- Operations and Support –
- Examine whether capabilities exist from foreign sources to facilitate maintenance or other activities, including disposal.
- Discuss potentials of burden sharing using national equipment (i.e., a partner nation supporting within a US brigade) and the implied reduction to US logistics requirements
- Assess whether any of these projects could satisfy, or could be modified in scope so as to satisfy (at the system of component level), the military requirements of the project of the United States under consideration by the Department of Defense.
- Assess whether there are opportunities for information exchanges, including data concerning subcomponent development that would benefit the Department of Defense acquisition including expertise, lessons learned or cost avoidance measures.
- Assess the advantages and disadvantages with regard to program timing, developmental and life cycle costs, technology sharing, and Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI) of seeking to structure a cooperative development program with one or more countries and organizations referred to in subsection (a)(2)* or NATO organizations. This assessment should address (consult with organizations such as the Service International Programs Offices (IPOs) for assistance):
- Standards and common architectures
- Use of open systems architectures
- Use or development of standards and common architectures (e.g. commercial standards, NATO standardization agreements (STANAGs))
- Information Exchanges
- Open Forums and Symposiums
- Highlight existing information exchange agreements on subject
- Sharing of R&D information between allies and friendly nations
- Sharing of tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) and concepts of operations (CONOPS) with allies and friendly nations
- Personnel exchanges (liaison officers, engineer and scientist exchanges)
- Loans of equipment (for testing purposes)
- Cooperative opportunities
- Review of S&T opportunities from and with allies, strategic partners (coordination with S&T organizations within OSD, Services, CoCOMs)
- Cooperative development of components – previous or on comparable/related systems, ongoing or planned (check Service IPOs)
- Cooperative development at system level – previous or on comparable/related systems, ongoing or planned (check Service of R&D information between allies and friendly nations Cooperative IPOs)
- Operations and Support
- Combined operations common or interoperable equipment
- Cooperative Logistics through burden sharing (i.e., shared asset tracking), cooperative maintenance
- Cooperative improvements to fielded equipment
- Releasability Issues
- Will end item and intellectual property be USG or contractor owned?
- What are the critically protected items (CPI) involved in the system?
- Export Strategy
- Planned development for protection of CPI elements
- Export variants to protect CPI while maintaining interoperability
- Planned development for protection of CPI elements
- Planned Timelines for the following:
- Foreign Military Sales
- Direct Commercial Sales
- Loans of equipment to support operations (which may require potential Yockey Waivers)
- Standards and common architectures
- Provide the Acquisition Executive’s or Program Executive Officer’s recommendation to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(A&S)) as to whether the Department of Defense should explore the feasibility and desirability of a cooperative development program with one or more countries and organizations referred to in subsection (a)(2)* or NATO organizations.
- Include a proposed time phased approach for cooperative opportunities to best respond to acquisition schedules and milestones
10 USC 2350a, subsection (a)(2) refers to the following: (2) The countries and organizations with which the Secretary may enter into a memorandum of agreement (or other formal agreement) under paragraph (1) are as follows:
(A) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(B) A NATO organization.
(C) A member nation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
(D) A major non-NATO ally.
(E) Any other friendly foreign country. ↑