Sign In
App icon


Available Now!
Get the App
Click Here to Continue Browser Session   ❯



The IA&E Aspects of the New DoDD 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System) IA&E Aspects of the New DoDD 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System)2020-09-17T16:00:00Z Interest Areas/DAU_International Acquisition UN_20170104.jpg, Interest Areas/DAU_International Acquisition UN_20170104.jpg Interest Areas/DAU_International Acquisition UN_20170104.jpg<div class="ExternalClass1646C5167BFB4F32B9C5285B6B7EF59E">One of the final DoD 5000 series issuances associated with the new <a href="">DoD Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF)</a> -- the <a href=""><strong>‘new’ DoDD 5000.01</strong></a> on “The Defense Acquisition System” (DAS) – was finally approved by the DepSecDef and published on September 9, 2020. It cancels and replaces the <a href="">‘old’ DoDD 5000.01</a> published in May 2003 in its entirety. <h2><strong>Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)</strong></h2> Like its predecessor version, the ‘new’ DoDD 5000.01 establishes overall DoD acquisition policy and establishes responsibilities for managing DoD acquisition programs by assigning primary and supporting responsibilities to UnderSecDef (Acquisition & Sustainment), USD (Research & Engineering), six (6) other supporting USDs and Office of SecDef (OSD) Direct Reports, the DoD Components (focusing on those which have acquisition responsibilities) and the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.<br> <br> Unlike its predecessor, however, the new DoDI 5000.01 bases future DoD acquisition policy on the DoD AAF approach coupled with extensive delegation of most acquisition program/project oversight and management responsibilities to the DoD Components implemented in accordance with a comprehensive set of specific ‘a. through y.’ policy revisions (with ‘z.’ perhaps being reserved for future growth). <h2><strong>IA&E Policy</strong></h2> The policy area that is directly related to DoD International Acquisition and Exportability (IA&E) and U.S. Government/DoD Security Cooperation activities concerns efforts to “Plan for Coalition Partners” in paragraph 1.2.t.:<br> <br> <strong><em>The DAS will plan for coalition partners “to enable allies and partners to enhance U.S. military capability, collaboration opportunities, potential partnerships, and international acquisition and exportability features and limitations will be considered in the early design and development phase of acquisition programs.”</em></strong> <h2><strong>Comparative Analysis</strong></h2> The new version DoDD 5000.01 is a major change from the 2003 version DoDD 5000.01 which emphasized the importance of the following IA&E areas from an overall DoD acquisition policy perspective: <ul> <li>Establishing and implementing International Cooperative Program (ICP) acquisition program partnerships with allied and friendly nations. (Encl. 1, para E.1.1.1.)</li> <li>Design for interoperability in a joint DoD and coalition partner environment. (Encl 1, E.1.1.13.)</li> <li>DoD Component use of the following program new start prioritization: a) procurement or modification of commercial available defense systems/equipment; b) production/modification of existing U.S. or allied systems; c) ICP programs with allies; d) U.S. Government (USG) or joint programs; and, e) DoD Component-unique programs. (Encl. 1, E.1.1.18.)</li> </ul> <h2><strong>IA&E Trend Analysis</strong></h2> When you analyze the new DoDD 5000.01 “Plan for Coalition Partners” guidance in the context of this Administration’s National Security and Defense strategies, its USG Conventional Arms Transfer policy emphasis areas, the other recent DoD 5000 series AAF policy issuances, and ongoing IA&E activities, the USG and DoD appear to be emphasizing and deemphasizing the following areas at the individual DoD acquisition program and project level: <h3><em><strong>Trending Up</strong></em></h3> <ol> <li>Defense exportability program-level planning and implementation that “builds exportability” into new and modified DoD systems/equipment.</li> <li>Program-level planning and implementation of defense investment, sales, and transfers across all IA&E transaction types -- Foreign Military Sales (FMS), International Cooperative Programs (ICP)s, Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), Building Partner Capacity (BPC) transfers -- to allied and friendly nations.</li> </ol> <h3><em><strong>Trending Steady</strong></em></h3> <ol> <li value="3">Coalition interoperability design, development, and testing and evaluation activities (see DoDD 5000.02, para 1.2.q.).</li> <li value="4">Adapting and using domestic and international commercial technology in defense systems/equipment.</li> </ol> <h3><em><strong>Trending Down</strong></em></h3> <ol> <li value="4">International Cooperative Program (ICP) new start development identification and implementation.</li> <li value="5">Acquiring new non-developmental systems/equipment from domestic and foreign sources.</li> </ol> <h2><strong>Broader Considerations</strong></h2> Since DoD IA&E is a ‘dependent variable’ to overall DoD acquisition policy, it’s also worth exploring a few of the other DoDD 5000.01 ‘a. through y.’ policy areas that will likely have a substantial impact on DoD program/project level IA&E efforts implemented through the AAF policy issuances published so far in 2020. <ul> <li><em><strong>Emphasize Competition (para 1.2.e.)</strong></em>: As a result of the many Reciprocal Defense Procurement (RDP) international agreements put in place over the years by the OUSD(A&S)/Director Pricing and Contracting (DPC) International Contracting organization, PMs, Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), and DoD prime contractors and major suppliers are well positioned to take advantage of innovative and affordable defense and dual use technology products and solutions through international contracting with a wide variety of global sources.</li> <li><em><strong>Manage Effectively and Efficiently (para 1.2.h.)</strong></em>: As a result of DoD’s broad delegation of acquisition program Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) responsibility to the DoD Components – and further re-delegation of MDA responsibility by the DoD Components within their acquisition establishments – many more MDAs will be responsible for making ‘building in exportability’ and ‘planning for coalition partner’ choices in the programs they oversee. Decisions in these key IA&E policy areas at the program level often require complex tradeoff analyses which can pose difficult challenges to PEOs, PMs, and IPTs. DoD Component International Program Organizations (IPOs) and International Acquisition Career Path (IACP) experts will need to step up and help provide IA&E decision support in these areas.</li> <li><em><strong>Focus on Affordability (para 1.2.i.)</strong></em>: Efforts to build in defense exportability require up front resources. However, thoughtful and prudent investment in this area – coupled with early IA&E planning for future allied/friendly nation partnership and sales opportunities at the program level – can result in substantial program-level affordability benefits in production and sustainment. DoD Component IPOs and IACP experts have the knowledge and skills to assist in this area as well.</li> <li><em><strong>Plan for Product Support and Implement Life-Cycle Management (paras 1.2.l.&m.)</strong></em>: IA&E investment in program-level product improvement and logistics & sustainment partnerships -- typically accomplished through ICP and FMS arrangements with allied/friendly nations -- provide a steady stream of innovation and investment in mature and aging DoD programs.</li> </ul> <h2><strong>Summary</strong></h2> Learning institutions – including DAU – sometimes use ‘true – false’ test questions to assess knowledge. Consider the following T/F questions: <ol> <li>Internet content is always accurate.</li> <li>You should always believe what you read.</li> <li>It never rains on a golf course.</li> <li>The DoD acquisition workforce always follows DoD 5000 series policies.</li> </ol> <br> There are also apocryphal quotes like the following attributed to German WW II and Soviet Cold War military sources – "a serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."<br> <br> My own observation is that the 2003 DoDD 5000.01 hierarchy of new start prioritization – ICPs favored over DoD Component-unique programs – did not influence actual DoD Component behavior. Most new Joint Service and allied ICP efforts during the 00’s and 10’s had to be ‘top down’ driven by OSD while the lion’s share of program new starts during that era were DoD Component-unique.<br> <br> Here’s hoping that the new DoDD 5000.01 “Plan for Coalition Partners” policy guidance resonates with the DoD Component acquisition leaders, PEOs, and PMs responsible for leading and managing DoD’s acquisition programs in the next decade.<br> <br> Until next time, Prof K</div>string;#/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/The-IAandE-Aspects-of-the-New-DoDD-5000-01-(The-Defense-Acquisition-System)
The IA&E Aspects of the New DoDI 5000.83 (Technology and Program Protection) IA&E Aspects of the New DoDI 5000.83 (Technology and Program Protection)2020-09-10T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass6ABEE37B29A34DCAB8789FA953F98BA4">While many DoD acquisition workforce members are familiar with recent DoD 5000 series issuances associated with various aspects of the new <a href="">DoD Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF)</a>, the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering) also recently issued <a href="">DoDI 5000.83 “Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological Advantage”</a> on July 20<sup>th</sup>, 2020. The new DODI 5000.83 effectively cancels and replaces previous DoD acquisition-related program protection policy guidance contained in enclosures 3 and 13 of <a href="">DoDI 5000.02T “Operation of the Defense Acquisition System”</a> of April 2020. <h3><strong>Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)</strong></h3> The new DoDI 5000.83 establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for Science and Technology (S&T) managers and lead systems engineers to manage system security and cybersecurity technical risks resulting from various types of omnidirectional threats in order to develop and implement measures to protect: <ul> <li>DoD-sponsored research and technology that is in the interest of national security.</li> <li>DoD warfighting capabilities.</li> </ul> This new DoDI also illustrates the substantive impact of the separation of the previous UnderSecDef (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics) organization with respect to the program protection area: <ul> <li>USD (Acquisition & Sustainment (A&S)), who is responsible for Defense Acquisition System (DAS) oversight and management.</li> <li>USD (Research & Engineering (R&E)), who is responsible for oversight and management of defense acquisition science, research, and technology development efforts.</li> </ul> <h3><strong>Overview</strong></h3> For those readers unfamiliar with the broad areas involved in DoD acquisition and its International Acquisition and Exportability (IA&E) aspects, here’s an admittedly simplistic (but hopefully helpful) description of how the new DoDI 5000.83 will impact overall DoD acquisition program protection activities across the DoD acquisition life-cycle at the “30,000 foot” level:<br> <br> <table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:623px;" width="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td style="width:157px;"><strong>DoD Program Protection Efforts</strong></td> <td style="width:137px;"><strong>S&T and RDT&E Activities</strong> (1)</td> <td style="width:154px;"><strong>ATD RDT&E<br> Activities</strong> (2)</td> <td style="width:173px;"><strong>Acquisition Program RDT&E Activities</strong> (3)</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:157px;"><strong>Who Leads</strong></td> <td style="width:137px;">S&T Managers</td> <td style="width:154px;">Mix of S&T Mgrs, Lab Engineers, and System Engineers</td> <td style="width:173px;">Lead System Engineers supporting Program Managers (PMs)</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:157px;"><strong>Primary Focus</strong></td> <td style="width:137px;">Establish S&T Tech Area Program Protection Plans (TAPPs)</td> <td style="width:154px;">Establish/implement S&T Projection Plans for specific projects</td> <td style="width:173px;">Establish/implement Program Protection Plans (PPPs) for specific programs.(4)</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width:157px;"><strong>Desired Outcome</strong></td> <td style="width:137px;">Ensure existing and emerging new/evolving tech is protected</td> <td style="width:154px;">Ensure transitioning new/evolving tech is protected at the project level</td> <td style="width:173px;">Ensure fielded new/evolving tech is protected in fielded and deployed systems</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> ​ <ol> <li>DoD Science & Technology (S&T) activities – which are aligned with the RDT&E Budget Activities (BAs) 6.1. and 6.2 per the DoD Financial Management Regulations, Volume 2B, Chapter 5, para 050105) – are conducted independent of DoD acquisition program RDT&E efforts.</li> <li>DoD Advanced Technology Development (ATD) activities – which are aligned with RDT&E BAs 6.3 and 6.4 – focus on transition of new technology into DoD acquisition programs.</li> <li>DoD Acquisition RDT&E activities – which are aligned with RDT&E BAs 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 -- focus on integration of new technology into new or existing DoD systems and equipment that is fielded and used by DoD operational forces.</li> <li>DoD acquisition programs include the entire range of DoD AAF acquisition efforts, including Urgent Capability Acquisition (DoDI 5000.81), Middle Tier of Acquisition (DoDI 5000.80), and Major Capability Acquisition (DoDI 5000.85) efforts.</li> </ol> <h3><strong>Comparative Analysis</strong></h3> <em><strong>Part I -- The Old Approach</strong></em><br> <br> The DoDI 5000.02 approach (circa 2015) made the Program Manager (PM) responsible for program protection in DoD acquisition programs – including Program Protection Plan (PPP) preparation -- while S&T managers were assigned the responsibility for S&T-related technology protection in DoD S&T technology base and RDT&E project efforts. The ASD(R&E) staff element of the previous USD(AT&L) organization worked with DoD Component HQ acquisition organizations to assist S&T managers, RDT&E personnel in labs and warfare centers, and the systems engineers supporting PMs to achieve these objectives.<br> <br> Beginning in 2015, ASD(R&E) began promoting use of a <a href="/tools/t/DEI-JST">“Three Pillars” program protection approach</a> by PMs and their Integrated Product Team (IPT) – including the IPT’s system’s engineering and systems security engineering functions -- in the areas of Cyber and Information Security, Critical Program Information (CPI) projection using Anti-Tamper (AT), and Trusted Systems and Networks (TSN) protective measures. This ‘Three Pillars’ program protection approach was included as an integral part of OUSD(AT&L)’s <a href="/tools/t/DEI-JST">Defense Exportability Integration</a> efforts during this time period.<br> <br> <em><strong>Part II -- The New Approach</strong></em><br> <br> The new DoDI 5000.83 focuses on establishing S&T manager and lead systems engineering responsibilities in the program protection area as well as providing the DoD acquisition workforce with a new approach to S&T project and acquisition program protection planning.<br> <br> With respect to DoD Acquisition Category (ACAT) ID programs – which are the responsibility of the USD(A&S) acting as the Defense Acquisition Executive --USD(R&E) is now the PPP approval authority at DAS milestone decisions. However, there are very few ACAT ID programs remaining as a result of the delegation of Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) to the DoD Components for all other ACAT/AAF acquisition programs. For all the rest of these DoD Component-managed programs, “the PPP will be submitted for approval [to the MDA], in accordance with Major Capability Acquisition, Operation of Middle Tier Acquisition, Urgent Operation Needs, and Software Acquisition [DoD 5000 series policies] at each acquisition pathway decision point.”<br> <br> Another major change is that PPPs developed for acquisition programs from this point onward are supposed to be based on any relevant Technology Area Protection Plans (TAPPs) implemented through corresponding S&T Protection Plans.<br> <br> <u><strong>TAPPs</strong></u><br> <br> A TAPP will be established and maintained by USD(R&E) for each S&T modernization priority area. They will inform S&T research at the appropriate BA level, or at Technology Readiness Levels 1-6 and PPPs. They will be designed to reduce compromise or loss of critical technologies and protect against unwanted technology transfer and used to guide DoD acquisition efforts in: S&T; export controls; international agreements; security; counterintelligence; and U.S. law enforcement activities.<br> <br> <u><strong>S&T Protection Plans</strong></u><br> <br> S&T managers in the DoD Components will prepare S&T Protection Plans as a management tool to guide S&T protection activities at the S&T and RDT&E project level. Such projects, when associated with critical technology or modernization priority areas, will need to develop an S&T Protection Plan that includes: critical technology elements and enabling technologies; threats to, and vulnerabilities of, these items; and, selected countermeasures to mitigate associated risks. These S&T Protection Plans are supposed to be developed and submitted prior to each S&T/RDT&E project’s approval – and updated, as appropriate -- based on procedures defined by each DoD Component. <h3><strong>Impact on Program Protection Training</strong></h3> DoDI 5000.83 makes USD(A&S) – in coordination with the USD(R&E) – responsible for incorporating technology and program protection activities in Defense Acquisition University (DAU) education and training.<br> <br> <a href="">DAU’s existing courses</a> in this area – which focus on the Three Pillars program protection approach, including its relationship to defense exportability planning and implementation -- include ACQ 160 (Program Protection Planning Awareness), ENG 260 (Program Protection for Practitioners), and DAU’s Program Protection Credential (which requires completion of ACQ 160, ENG 260, and a Summation Exam).<br> <br> These will presumably have to be modified to reflect the new DoDI 5000.83 policy guidance, including the new emphasis on TAPPs and S&T Protection Plans serving as the basis for AAF acquisition program PPPs from this point onward. <h3><strong>Potential Implementation Challenges</strong></h3> In my experience, sweeping new DoD policy issuances like DoDI 5000.83 take time to implement throughout the Department. This new DoDI calls for several substantive changes to the status quo regarding how program protection measures will be identified, developed, and fielded throughout the DoD acquisition program lifecycle. Here are a few areas that could prove challenging, particularly at the DoD Component project and program level.<br> <br> <u><strong>Development and Update of TAPPs</strong></u>: TAPPs are a new concept which will provide top level DoD foundational ‘building blocks’ for development of S&T Protection Plans for each specific DoD Component S&T and RDT&E project that requires program protection measures. Until TAPPs are developed and issued, implementation of DoDI 5000.83 principles and processes at the DoD Component S&T and RDT&E project level will likely be impacted due to lack of overarching TAPP guidance across the entire DoD S&T/RDT&E domain.<br> <br> <u><strong>DoD Component S&T Protection Plans</strong></u>: The scale, scope, and diversity of S&T and RDT&E project efforts across the DoD acquisition enterprise is immense. As a result, the breadth and depth of the number of S&T Protection Plans that will have to be developed and approved has yet to be defined, and DoD Component approval processes for such plans have yet to be developed.<br> <br> <u><strong>Role of the Program Manager</strong></u>: DoDI 5000.83 essentially shifts the responsibility for acquisition program PPPs from the PM to the program’s lead systems engineer. Notably, the term “program manager” is used only once in the new DoDI 5000.83, “After the full-rate production or full-deployment decision, the PPP will transition to the <strong><em>program manager [PM]</em></strong> responsible for system sustainment and disposal.” However, during a system’s development phases PMs will remain responsible for making AAF program-level recommendations to MDAs regarding cost, schedule, and performance design trades -- including cost/benefit choices in the program protection area -- based on advice provided by the lead systems engineer and other IPT members.<br> <br> <u><strong>DoD Component MDA Approval Process for PPPs</strong></u>: Under the new set of AAF DoD 5000 series policies, DoD Components have been delegated the responsibility for almost all program level milestone decision making. As a result, almost all of the program-level PPP approvals required by the new DoDI 5000.83 will be made by DoD Component MDAs at various organizational levels. Many of these decisions will be made at the Program Executive Officer (PEO) level for smaller AAF programs. Who will provide PEOs (and their supporting staff organizations) with training and decision support to help them evaluate and approve PM recommendations regarding investment in and implementation of program protection measures on a program-by-program basis?<br> <br> <u><strong>Impact on IA&E</strong></u>: The recently published <a href="">DoDI 5000.85</a> makes IA&E planning and implementation mandatory for DoD Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) programs. As outlined in a recent blog on this subject, <a href="/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/The-IAandE-Aspects-of-the-New-DoDI-5000-85-(Major-Capability-Acquisition)">DoD’s new MCA acquisition policy places particular emphasis on the importance of “building in exportability”</a> in DoD’s new and modified systems, and makes DoD Component MDAs responsible for implementing this guidance. Experience has shown that the best way to build exportability into new and modified DoD systems is to include ‘one size fits all’ program protection – including cybersecurity, anti-tamper, and trusted systems & networks measures – to the maximum extent possible during the early stages of development. The ‘one size fits all’ program protection concept provides a robust foundation for future domestic and exportable system versions. As a result, it’s essential that proposed DoDI 5000.83-based program protection measures are aligned with proposed DoDI 5000.85-based defense exportability features in future AAF program milestone decisions (or equivalent). <h3><strong>Summary</strong></h3> There are many ‘greater goods’ that PMs must address in their programs in areas such as regulatory compliance, interoperability, and program protection. These areas are often referred to as ‘unfunded mandates’ since compliance is required but no additional funding beyond the program’s authorization and appropriations is typically provided. Moreover, it can be quite challenging to define and decide ‘how much’ of one of these ‘greater goods’ is enough since absolute compliance in each area -- if there is such a thing -- is often neither achievable nor affordable. The need to make difficult decisions during a program’s development phases regarding system-level cost/benefit tradeoffs – even for ‘greater good’ areas such as program protection – frequently occurs.<br> <br> This reminds me of an earlier blog I published concerning <a href="/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/International-Acquisition-and-Exportability-(IAandE)-and-Lashley’s-Laws">Lashly’s Laws</a> of DoD system program management which explain why: <ol> <li>You can have <strong><em>anything </em></strong>you want [but] …</li> <li>You cannot have <strong><em>everything </em></strong>you want [since] …</li> <li>You <strong><em>decide </em></strong>what you [really] want by what you are willing to <strong><em>give up</em></strong> to get it [and, most importantly] …</li> <li>If you are unwilling to give up anything, <strong><em>what </em></strong>you will get is <strong><em>nothing </em></strong>that <strong><em>anyone </em></strong>would want.</li> </ol> The new DoDI 5000.83 establishes high standards regarding the implementation of program protection measures in DoD S&T/RDT&E projects and acquisition programs for the greater good. The new DoDI 5000.85 establishes high standards regarding building exportability into new and modified DoD systems as well. While we can all appreciate the overall DoD benefits that will result from the implementation of both these DoDIs, it appears that evaluating and making program protection and building exportability cost/benefit tradeoff decisions at the deckplate level during the development phase of AAF programs will pose even greater challenges for the DoD acquisition workforce in the future. We are already working on new DAU learning content to support such efforts.<br> <br> Until next time, Prof K<br> <br> P.S. – If you’re interested in additional insights on this important subject, please consider participating in an upcoming DAU webinar “<a href="">Adaptive Acquisition Framework: DoDI 5000.83 Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological Advantage</a>” on September 15, 2020 from 1200 – 1330.</div>string;#/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/The-IAandE-Aspects-of-the-New-DoDI-5000-83-(Technology-and-Program-Protection)
DoD Int’l Acquisition Transactions – Software 101 Int’l Acquisition Transactions – Software 1012020-08-20T16:00:00Z Interest Areas/DAU_Cybersecurity DoD Seal_20170104.jpg, Interest Areas/DAU_Cybersecurity DoD Seal_20170104.jpg Interest Areas/DAU_Cybersecurity DoD Seal_20170104.jpg<div class="ExternalClassB57335E4FD9D4DFCB28F997DE8E47C11">One of the biggest changes I’ve observed since I became a DoD acquisition professional in the early 1980's is the paramount importance of software in DoD system design, development, fielding, support, and upgrade. One of the questions we’re often asked at Defense Acquisition University (DAU) during mission assistance efforts involving international acquisition transactions is, “what are the differences (if any) between DoD domestic and international programs software development and management?”<br> <br> The purpose of this blog is to provide DoD Acquisition & Security Cooperation International Acquisition & Exportability (IA&E) workforce members and supporting industry with an overview of key <strong><a href="/cop/iam/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/DAU%20DSMC-I%20Intl%20Acq%20Transactions%20Software%20Overview%20-%20R2%20-7-25-20.pptx?Web=1">DoD International Acquisition Transaction Computer Software Policies & Practices</a></strong> which we recently published on our website. <h3><strong>Bottom Line Up Front</strong></h3> The primary differences between DoD domestic and international management of software occur when a USG/DoD international transaction mechanism is formulated and established with a partner/customer nation or private sector entity. <h3><u>Rule #1</u></h3> New/modified software in DoD systems and equipment that is developed, sold, or transferred to foreign nations or entities is considered a “<u>Defense Article</u>” just like hardware. <h3><u>Rule #2</u></h3> <br> New or modified Science & Technology (S&T) and Research, Development, and Test & Evaluation” (RDT&E) software developed with foreign nations or entities is considered “<u>Information.</u>” <h3><u>Rule #3</u></h3> DoD international acquisition transactions of all types should be structured to address one (or both) forms of computer software by incorporating the detailed provisions required to protect USG/DoD Intellectual Property Rights interests and conform with U.S. Third Party Sales & Transfers export control laws, regulations, and policies while upholding DoD’s legal and contractual obligations to partner nations and/or U.S. and foreign private sector entities. <h3><strong>DoD Software Evolution – A Brief History</strong></h3> Early in my career, computing power was limited, and the software developed and deployed in our in most of our DoD systems was managed using a modified version of the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process used for hardware configuration management. I was even assigned to lead our platform’s Software Change Review Board process at one point in time since: a) I had recently graduated from college and taken a class or two in software development and coding; and, b) it wasn’t considered that important (hardware ECPs were where the big money was spent).<br> <br> Needless to say, things have changed quite bit. DoD’s software development efforts run the gamut of developing tactical and logistics applications (aka “apps”) for iPhone and Android use to fielding and upgrade of incredibly complex platform and subsystem software involving millions of lines of code. If, as Willy Sutton observed, banks attract a lot of interest “because that’s where the money is,” a similar observation could also be made about DOD software acquisition.<br> <br> Another major change that has occurred in both commercial and defense sectors is how software Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are established and managed. In the 80s and 90s, DoD platform and equipment software was essentially divided into two elements: <ul> <li>Software object code and source code contained in various types of storage media (firmware and removable) considered to be part of the system's <strong><em>Defense Article </em></strong>configuration deliverable to DoD under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts.</li> <li>Software technical documentation (in either paper or electronic form) considered to be part of the <strong><em>Information</em></strong> developed and (if specified) delivered to DoD under FAR contracts.</li> </ul> By contrast, DoD S&T and RDT&E software – which in many cases was either developed by DoD labs or acquired through grants and smaller FAR contracts – was not subject to system/equipment-level configuration control, so <strong><em>both</em></strong> the software code itself (in storage media) and whatever software technical documentation was generated (in paper and/or electronic form) was considered and treated as <strong><em>information</em></strong>.<br> <br> These basic ‘rules’ still exist today. However, it can be much harder to apply these ‘rules’ in the current spectrum of DoD international acquisition transactions and software acquisition policies and practices. <h3><strong>DoD Software – Today’s Environment</strong></h3> DoD platform, equipment, and logistics support software development and management environment is much more complex than “back in the day.” DoD acquisition Program Management Offices (PMOs), Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), and DoD Component technical organizations (labs and warfare centers) have many options when it comes to software development, acquisition, support, and upgrade: <ul> <li>International Cooperative Program (ICP) international agreements with allied/friend nation government defense organizational counterparts.</li> <li>Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements with U.S. or foreign entities.</li> <li>Cooperative R&D Agreements (CRADAs) with U.S. or foreign entities.</li> <li>Acquisition of use rights for off-the-shelf or ‘customized’ versions Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software from U.S. or foreign private sector entities.</li> </ul> Similarly, allied and friendly nations have several options in the acquiring, maintaining, and upgrading platform, equipment, and logistics support software in concert with the U.S.: <ul> <li>ICP international agreements with DoD Components.</li> <li>DoD Component CRADAs established with their nation’s government or defense labs.</li> <li>Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases with the USG/DoD.</li> <li>Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) contracts with U.S. industry (subject to USG export control approvals).</li> <li>Building Partner Capacity (BPC) pseudo-FMS arrangements.</li> <li>Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreements (ACSAs) implementing arrangements.</li> </ul> <h3><strong>Potential IA&E Software Challenges</strong></h3> <h4><em><strong>S&T/RDT&E Projects</strong></em></h4> When it comes to S&T and RDT&E software development and acquisition, almost all of the international transaction mechanisms mentioned can be used by DoD labs and warfare centers to leverage global defense marketplace investment in defense, dual-use, and commercial software products. However, some mechanisms work much better than others for S&T and RDT&E software development cooperation, depending on the objectives of the project and other circumstances. There are also USG export control and USG/DoD Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure (TSFD) considerations that must be addressed.<br> <br> Selecting the optimal international transaction mechanism for S&T/RDT&E software development cooperation is part “science” and part “art.” Timely, detailed subject matter expert advice from the IA&E Community is often required to choose the best course of action to achieve project objectives.<br> <br> <em><strong>System/Equipment Acquisition Programs</strong></em><br> <br> Under the old paradigm, DoD acquired defense-specific platform/equipment software from major defense contractors and suppliers, often at considerable expense. As the sole customer, DoD was able to exert a lot of control over software development, and had the opportunity to acquire software IPR through FAR contracts. While this still occurs, the current environment has been heavily influenced by commercial software development practices and COTS software acquisition initiatives. In such circumstances, DoD software acquisition often works the same way as it does in our personal lives.<br> <br> Most of us familiar with acquiring software use licenses to obtain software for our mobile and computing devices. We are interested in ‘executable software’ itself and sufficient information on how to use it. Software IPR is not provided to the customer by software developers since it is often extremely valuable due to the commercial advantage it provides to the firm that created it. We don’t need the software IPR, so we don’t care … but DoD should. Here’s why.<br> <br> When DoD decides to acquire COTS or modified COTS software for use in its platform and equipment acquisition programs -- particularly in the logistics support area -- the ‘old way’ of acquiring “Defense Article” software and related software technical documentation as “Information” through a FAR contract typically doesn’t apply. DoD purchases COTS software use licenses like individuals and businesses, albeit on a larger scale, for its defense use.<br> <br> However, since DoD has no control over such software programs or associated IPR, it cannot provide potential DoD partner or customer nations with the COTS software for its use unless DoD (or the partner/customer nation) is willing to pay the COTS software provider for additional software use licenses. PMO/IPT failure to recognize (and plan for) the acquisition of software use licenses needed to implement ICP and FMS transactions – plus obtain any required USG/DoD export and TSFD approvals for any DoD Controlled Unclassified or Classified Information that may be resident in this COTS software during typical operation – can cause significant operational and/or logistics support problems for partner/customer nations until resolved. <h3><strong>What is the DoD IA&E Community's Role?</strong></h3> The availability, quality, and maintainability of DoD platform and equipment software is critically important to U.S. and allied/friendly nation coalition operations. DoD’s ability to retain and expand its leading edge S&T and RDT&E technical capabilities relies on both domestic and international sources of investment and innovation. Moreover, DoD and its partner/customer nations are constantly seeking ways to share the economic burden of software maintenance and upgrades on DoD and co-developed systems/equipment operated by their respective operational forces.<br> <br> As outlined in this blog -- and explored in greater detail in DAU’s <strong><a href="/cop/iam/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/DAU%20DSMC-I%20Intl%20Acq%20Transactions%20Software%20Overview%20-%20R2%20-7-25-20.pptx?Web=1">DoD International Acquisition Transaction Computer Software Policies & Practices</a></strong> --the set of available choices for DoD and partner/customer nation is complex and potentially confusing. Picking optimal international transaction mechanisms based on the circumstances can encourage S&T/RDT&E software innovation and agility as well as achieve acquisition program software performance, cost, and schedule outcomes. However, the converse is also true, which could adversely affect DoD and its allies/friends.<br> <br> DoD International Acquisition and Security Cooperation workforce members have an important responsibility to assist DoD Component PMOs, IPTs, labs and warfare center “generalists”-- and their allied/friendly nation counterparts -- in choosing the international acquisition transaction mechanism(s) that will best accomplish their program/project's software development and management objectives. We hope this blog – and our website presentation on this topic – will provide the DoD IA&E Community with current information and best practice advice in this complex and challenging aspect of international acquisition.<br> <br> Until next time, Prof K</div>string;#/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/DoD-Int’l-Acquisition-Transactions-–-Software-101
IA&E in the New DoDI 5000.85 (Major Capability Acquisition) in the New DoDI 5000.85 (Major Capability Acquisition)2020-08-09T16:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass315C16321A1A48C59D66C9AC3D77D515">The long awaited <strong><a href="">DoDI 5000.85 on Major Capability Acquisition (MCA)</a></strong> was signed out by USD(A&S) on August 6<sup>th</sup>, 2020. This new DoDI replaces the key aspects of the ‘old’ DoDI <a href="">5000.02T</a> policy – originally issued in January 2015 -- with respect to the conduct of ‘traditional" DoD acquisition programs. As anticipated, it contains a major policy change on the planning and implementation of <strong><a href="/cop/iam/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/ACQ101%20Fund%20of%20SysAcqMgmt%20Lesson%20Summary%20Sep%2019.pdf?Web=1">International Acquisition and Exportability (IA&E)</a> </strong>in DoD's future MCA programs. <h3><strong>Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)</strong></h3> The new <a href="">DoDI 5000.85</a> policy makes IA&E planning and implementation <u>mandatory</u> for DoD MCA programs while the old DoDI 5000.02 included IA&E as a “consideration.” DoD’s new MCA acquisition policy places particular emphasis on the importance of “building in exportability” in DoD’s new and modified major capability systems consistent with the U.S. Government (USG) <a href="/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/U-S--Conventional-Arms-Transfer-(CAT)-Policy-Implementation-Update">Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy</a> guidance in this area. <h3><strong>Building Exportability Design and Development</strong></h3> MCA system exportability efforts should begin as early as possible in the system’s conceptualization and continue through its development phases. Here’s what the new DoDI 5000.85 says. <h4><strong><u>Material Solution Analysis (MSA) Phase</u></strong></h4> "The [Analysis of Alternatives] AoA will inform and be informed by affordability analysis, sustainment considerations, early systems engineering analysis, threat projections, and <strong><em>coalition interoperability</em></strong> as identified in the [Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) Initial Capabilities Document] ICD."<br> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? The inclusion of coalition interoperability capability requirements identified in the ICD during the MSA Phase provides a logical foundation for further analysis regarding the breadth and depth of “building exportability” efforts during the system development phases that follow. <h4><strong><u>Milestone A Decision</u></strong></h4> "A draft [JCIDS] capability development document (CDD) approved by the DoD Component informs the acquisition strategy and the RFP for TMRR … Principal considerations include: … “A proposed acquisition strategy, including intellectual property (IP), <strong><em>program protection</em></strong>, and <strong><em>exportability</em></strong> and acquisition planning …”<br> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? The fact that “program protection” and “exportability” are specifically mentioned as key elements in an MCA’s acquisition strategy will ensure that the Program Manager (PM) and the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) establish developmental objectives in both these areas. <h4><strong><u>Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase</u></strong></h4> While exportability is not specifically mentioned, TMRR Phase efforts require evaluation of “<strong><em>program protection requirements</em></strong>” -- which are foundational to building exportability – and will enable the requirements validation authority for the MCA to validate the CDD which – per <a href="/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/Big-News-in-Defense-Exportability">JROCM 025-19</a> -- should “include <strong><em>standard exportability language as a Key System Attribute (KSA)</em></strong> in [CDDs and CDD Updates] for systems with export potential as determined by the [MDA] at Milestone A.”<br> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? TMRR Phase efforts should be used by the PM and Integrated Product Team (IPT) to define and document realistic, achievable ‘building exportability” requirements that will guide the MCA system design and development efforts. <h4><strong><u>Development Request for Proposal (RFP) Release Decision (DRFPD)</u></strong></h4> The MDA is responsible for approving release of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). “The ADM will include specific criteria required for Milestone C approval including test and evaluation accomplishments, <strong><em>exportability and international acquisition planning</em></strong>, LRIP quantities or the limited deployment scope, affordability requirements and program goals, finalized sustainment metrics, and FYDP funding requirements.”<br> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? The MDA’s ADM for the EMD Phase will provide the PM and IPT with specific guidance for exportability and international acquisition efforts during EMD unless this requirement is “waived” (more on this topic in the next paragraph). Experience has shown that EMD is the most important “building exportability” acquisition phase since the outcome of EMD directly influences DoD's ability to produce and support exportable versions an MCA system in subsequent Production and Delivery (P&D) and Operations and Support (O&S) acquisition phases. <h3><strong>Building Exportability Decisions</strong></h3> <a href="">DoDI 5000.85</a> contains several appendices, including Appendix 3C., Additional Program Management Considerations. Paragraph 3C.4. on International Acquisition and Exportability establishes specific requirements for PMs and MDAs in this area. PMs will: <ul> <li>"Integrate international acquisition and exportability planning into the program’s acquisition strategy beginning at the entry milestone and continuing through all phases of the acquisition process.”</li> <li>"Design the system for exportability to foreign partners, except when the program has an MDA-approved waiver allowing for a U.S.-only design. PMs for MDAPs pursuing a U.S.-only design and not planning for system export require an MDA-approved exportability design waiver which must be reviewed at each milestone. If a program has been approved for a waiver for a U.S.-only design, the MDA will notify the USD(A&S) and the requirements validation authority.”</li> <li>“Plan for the demand and likelihood of cooperative development or production, and foreign sales (e.g., direct commercial sales or foreign military sales), early in the acquisition process, and consider U.S. export control laws, regulations, and DoD policy for foreign transfers when formulating and executing the acquisition strategy,” which should include planning for IA&E per paragraph 3C.3.a.</li> </ul> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? MDA’s will be required to make a conscious decision whether or not to “build exportability” into a new or modified MCA system at the point of EMD Developmental RFP decision. Under the “old” DoDI 5000.02 approach, MCA “building exportability” decisions could – and many times were – deferred to P&D and O&S phases when it was ‘too late’ to achieve exportability in a cost effective and timely manner. All too often this 'kick the can' approach to exportability left U.S. Government and DoD senior leaders with a limited set of options to respond to allied/friendly nation and/or DoD operational commander requests for export: <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha;"> <li>Approve a DoD system configuration for export that lacked sufficient exportability protections since no exportable version had been developed.</li> <li>Delay offer of the DoD system for export until funds could be obtained and PM/IPT resources could be allocated to design, develop, and retrofit an exportable version of the system.</li> <li>Disapprove the DoD system for export.</li> </ol> <h3><strong>Building Exportability Implementation</strong></h3> What should PMs do to accomplish “building exportability” outcomes? <a href="">DoDI 5000.85</a> paragraph 3C.4 goes on to state that PMs are responsible for: <ul> <li>Pursuing “cooperative opportunities and international involvement throughout the acquisition life cycle to enhance international cooperation and improve interoperability.”</li> <li>Conducting “Exportability and International Acquisition Roadmap” studies beginning no later than Milestone B.</li> </ul> While some suggestions on how to implement defense exportability at the program level have already been documented in DAU’s <a href="/tools/t/DEI-JST">Defense Exportability Integration Best Practices Job Support Tool (JST)</a> and <a href="/tools/t/International-Business-Planning-Job-Support-Tool-(JST)">International Business Planning JST</a>, further guidance regarding the content of PM IA&E Roadmaps will be included in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) in the coming months.<br> <br> <strong><em>Why Important</em></strong>? Building exportability into MCA systems exported to allied and friendly nations in support of U.S. national security and defense objectives is a challenging task – part “art,” part “science.” We need to provide PMs and IPTs with the knowledge and best practices learned through implementation of the Defense Exportability Features Program and other defense exportability efforts to help them achieve successful “building exportability” outcomes in the next generation of DoD MCA programs. <h3><strong>DoD Acquisition Workforce (AWF) Training on IA&E</strong></h3> DAU’s current approach to IA&E training focuses on three separate, but related, lines of effort: <ol> <li><strong><em>Broad-based DoD AWF training</em></strong>, including IA&E intro level modules in ACQ 1010 (Fundamentals of Systems Acquisition), ACQ 202 (Intermediate Systems Acquisition), and more advanced IA&E learning content in selected 300 and 400 level DAU Program Management career field courses.</li> <li><strong><em>Specialist DoD AWF training for International Acquisition Career Path (IACP)</em></strong> members (four separate 100, 200, and 300 level IA&E courses).</li> <li>Cooperation with the <strong><em>Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU)</em></strong> to provide DAU courses to <strong><em>Security Cooperation Workforce (SCWF)</em></strong> members who routinely work with and alongside DoD AWF personnel to implement Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and other USG/DoD Security Cooperation activities.</li> </ol> Experience since the 1990s has demonstrated the importance of broad-based training across the DoD AWF and DoD SCWF since IA&E efforts run the gamut from early development through O&S. It seems clear that the best way to effectively achieve DoDI 5000.85 MCA objectives in the “building exportability” area is to provide everyone in the AWF and SCWF with training in IA&E fundamentals. This will allow AWF and SCWF “generalists” to recognize when IA&E “specialists” should be consulted to help their program team “build exportability” into their MCA system. <h3><strong>Summary</strong></h3> For those who are already familiar with the evolving Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF) structure, the issuance of DoDI 5000.85 is a major step forward. However, there are several other new DoDIs that either have, or will be, published that provide full spectrum DoD acquisition policy guidance. On pain of dating myself with a 1960s TV reference, DAU’s <strong><a href="">AAF Acquisition Policies and Guides</a></strong> website provides a ‘Hollywood Squares’ presentation of all of them. I’ll try to highlight the IA&E aspects of some of the other new AAF issuances in upcoming blogs to show how they are related to DoDI 5000.85 MCA programs and other AAF efforts.<br> <br> Until next time, Prof K</div>string;#/training/career-development/intl-acq-mgmt/blog/The-IAandE-Aspects-of-the-New-DoDI-5000-85-(Major-Capability-Acquisition)