The Program Manager (PM), Training Systems (SST) currently has the responsibility for the acquisition and life cycle management of nonstandard training devices.  PM’s for other acquisition programs currently have the responsibility for acquisition and life cycle management of standard training devices and often do not involve PM, SST in these acquisitions.  Thus, those most experienced with training device technology and its acquisition are not normally involved in the acquisition of standard training devices.

It is the policy of this command that program managers shall identify ammunition requirements for test and evaluation during POM development.  Additionally, program managers shall retain continuous visibility of ammunition requirements throughout the subsequent budget formulation and execution planning processes.

To promulgate policy to ensure that manpower requirements for new and modified systems and equipment are properly acknowledged at the initiation and throughout the life of each acquisition program.

To establish command policy regarding establishment and implementation of SBA and associated Modeling and Simulation (M&S) within our acquisition processes.  Implementation of SBA within the command is expected to be evolutionary as specified in the enclosure.

In order to ensure consistency in the quality of our PLCCE’s, PAE shall be used to prepare all PLCCE’s in support of a milestone review that the Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command (COMMARCORSYSCOM) or Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition)
(ASN(RDA)) conducts.

Policy memorandum from USD (AT

HMMP Purpose. The HMMP includes the activities and infrastructure required for ongoing identification, management, tracking, and minimization of HAZMAT. The purpose of the HMMP is to manage the procurement and use of HAZMAT to: (1) support Air Force missions; (2) to protect the safety and health of personnel on Air Force installations and communities surrounding Air Force installations by
ensuring proper management of HAZMAT; (3) to minimize Air Force use of HAZMAT consistent with mission requirements; (4) and to maintain Air Force compliance with environmental requirements for HAZMAT usage.

The WWRS program was designed to facilitate the transfer of FMS customer excess serviceable materiel between FMS customers less time consuming, less bureaucratic, and
part of the FMS program. WWRS is a source of supply that is not dependent on new procurements. As part of the FMS process, WWRS aligns FMS excesses to FMS requirements. Requirements that cannot be matched to excesses are passed to the DoD supply system for procurement action. Prior to the WWRS program, the TPT and the FMS Excess Materiel Returns (FEMR) programs were the only avenues available to the
FMS customer to resell serviceable excess FMS acquired materiel. Based on the results of a sampling of FMS customers in 1995, there was a $1.8B stockpile of FMS excess
serviceable assets available for resale. This information confirmed customer’s complaints that neither the TPT nor the FEMR programs were effective and expedient ways to sell or transfer unneeded FMS acquired serviceable assets. AFSAC conducted an analysis of the two existing programs, with the assistance of the FMS customers, to identify program shortfalls and identify areas for improvement. The result is the WWRS
program.

The AFCPAB provides oversight and coordination of efforts within the Air Force to prevent or mitigate corrosion during design, acquisition, and maintenance of AF equipment and design, construction, and maintenance of infrastructure.

This manual implements AFPD 24-2, Preparation and Movement of Air Force Material. It provides guidance and
procedures for preparing hazardous materials for shipment by military aircraft to ensure that such materials are
packaged, marked, labeled, and prepared properly for transportation.

Mechanisms for maintaining current and accurate publications

The ULSS is prepared by the Program Manager for users to identify logistics resources necessary to operate and maintain the system’s subsystems and equipments in their operational environment.

This section outlines the process and procedures for computing the DMFA.

Abbreviations and Acronyms used in the AAO document.

As part of our continuing effort to eliminate burdens imposed on industry to maintain multiple processes, I have approved a three year commercial packaging pilot program as a result of discussions held at the December 1998 Single Process Initiative Executive Council. This pilot program will provide DoD an opportunity to apply commercial packaging techniques, materials, technologies and quality standards for packaging of deliverables. I chartered a joint Government-Industry Integrated Product Team (IPT) in late 1998 to develop the details of this pilot program.

UID implementation applies to both new acquisition items and tangible personal property legacy items in inventory and operational use, including government furnished property (GFP).

Developing processes that avoid requirements creep, technology overreach, produce realistic sustainment plans and life cycle cost estimates requires us to adjust our processes and take an Integrated Life Cycle Management view.

Block changes to management and manufacturing requirements of existin gcontracts be made on a facility wide basis.

To provide a guidebook to create an Army or DoD contract clause on CAF.  The clause will address the level of detail users wanted.  The team working on the clause decided to create a guidebook that could be more easily updated than a clause, and which could include template contract language, background information, and current resources.

This report captures many of the lessons learned in executing the first two phases of the Arsenal Ship program, a period of about 22 months. It focuses on acquisition process-oriented lessons, rather than individual consortia technology initiatives which are proprietary in nature. This report was written by the Arsenal Ship Joint Program Office (biographies at Tab M), and the views expressed do not necessarily reflect DARPA or Navy concurrence.

Acquisition reform has changed the way the Department of Defense (DoD) designs, develops, manufactures, and supports systems. Our technical, business, and management approach for acquiring and operating systems has, and continues to, evolve. For example, we no longer can rely on military specifications and standards to define and control how our developers design, build, and support our new systems.

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Instruction/Guidebook

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (referred to herein as the Board) shall consider and determine appeals from decisions of contracting officers pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-563, 41 U.S.C. 601-613) relating to contracts made by (i) the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy and Air Force or (ii) any other executive agency when such agency or the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy has designated the Board to decide the appeal.

252 Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses 252.246 to end

Product Quality Deficiency Reporting Procedures\r\n

Establishes requirements for all ground and flight operations involving all contracted work performed on aircraft where the Government has assumed some of the risk of loss for aircraft as well as procedures to be followed by Government Flight Representatives (GFRs). 

The purpose of these procedures is to prescribe uniform methods, codes, formats, and standards for the establishment, maintenance, publication, and dissemination of address
data to requiring Military Services, Federal Agencies, and civil agencies.

This Regulation is reissued under authority of DoD Directive 4140.1, "Materiel Management Policy," January 4, 1993. It prescribes procedures on the uniform management of DoD materiel. DoD 4140.1-R, "DoD Materiel Management Regulation," January 1993, is hereby canceled

This is the manual that states DoD demilitarization policy, prescribing uniform procedures for assigning codes to DoD property, and direct methods for completing demilitarization.

This handbook is an introduction to the broad subject of contracting with agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). It is intended to be useful to those who manage the marketing efforts of small businesses, especially firms that have not previously had Government contracts. The handbook contains general information about contracting. It provides lists of products and services, keyed to particular major buying offices.

The safeguarding of defense systems anywhere in the acquisition process, the defense technologies being developed that could lead to weapon or defense systems, and defense research data. ASP integrates all security disciplines, counterintelligence, and other defensive methods to deny foreign collection efforts and prevent unauthorized disclosure to deliver to our forces uncompromised combat effectiveness over the life expectancy of the system.

Provide the maximum possible protection to personnel and property, both inside and outside the installation, from the damaging effects of potential accidents involving DoD ammunition and explosives.

This guide is being developed in concert with the revised versions of DoD Directive 5000.1 and DoD Instruction 5000.2 and with "The Rules of the Road - A Guide for Leading Successful Integrated Product Teams." Through periodic updates, it will be kept consistent with the acquisition direction given in DoDI 5000.2 and OSD guidance publications, as well as other current approved acquisition practices. This guide will also be included in the forthcoming DoD Acquisition Deskbook.

The United States DoD is one of the worlds largest and most dynamic enterprises. Its data and information requirements are enormous. One of DoDs largest data and information requirements is managing the data that support its numerous weapons systems. The Joint Computer-aided Acquisition and Logistic Support (JCALS) System was developed to provide the tools for DoD to acquire, manage, access, and update the myriad of engineering drawings, technical manuals, and logistics data that support DoD weapons systems.

The purpose of this policy is to improve communication and teamwork between DoD and U.S. Industry in the Security Cooperation process. DoD and U.S. Industry participants must establish specific roles and responsibilities by developing DoD and U.S. Industry arrangements. In cases where only one U.S. contractor is involved, the military departments will be the DoD representatives for weapon systems under their cognizance. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) will be the DoD representative when more than one U.S. contractor is competing until downselection is complete. DoD representatives will not favor one U.S. contractor over another in competition process.

This standard provides the item marking criteria for development of specific marking requirements and methods for identification of items of military property produced,
stocked, stored, and issued by or for the Department of Defense. This standard addresses criteria and data content for both human-readable information (HRI) and machine-readable information (MRI) applications of item identification marking.

This Directive reissues reference (a) to update responsibilities to ensure effective performance of critical DoD missions and continuation of mission-essential functions during emergencies.

The usable radio frequency spectrum is vital to the support of military operations. Sound engineering and administrative practices shall be applied throughout the Department of Defense to use effectively and prudently the radio frequency spectrum. Due regard shall be given to the rights of other spectrum users.

This Directive reissues reference (a) and, pursuant to reference (b), establishes the policy of the Department of Defense regarding responsibility for the administrative and logistic support of the headquarters of the Unified and Specified Commands.

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness serves as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD(AT

National security information shall be classified, declassified and safeguarded, in accordance with national-level policy issuances. Misclassification shall be avoided.

No investigation is required when a member or former member of the Armed Forces submits a complaint of reprisal to an authorized IG more than 60 days after the date that the
member became aware of the personnel action that is the subject of the allegation. An authorized IG receiving a complaint of reprisal submitted more than 60 days after the member became aware of the personnel action at issue may, nevertheless, consider the complaint based on compelling reasons for the delay in submission or the strength of the evidence submitted. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DoD) shall investigate, or oversee DoD Component IG investigations of allegations that the prohibitions of paragraphs 4.2. To ensure compliance with this Directive and section 1034 of Reference (b) the IG DoD shall Expeditiously determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of an allegation submitted to the IG DoD or to a DoD Component IG, other than a Military Department IG, by a member or former member of the Armed Forces that the prohibitions of paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. have been violated. Receive notification from a Military Department IG of all reprisal and/or restriction allegations submitted to them by members or former members of the Armed Forces and expeditiously notify the Military Department IG concerned of decisions to retain such allegations for investigation. Review and approve the determination by a Military Department IG that investigation of an allegation submitted to an IG within the Military Department concerned is not warranted. Expeditiously initiate, or request the DoD Component IG to initiate, an investigation when it has been determined that investigation of an allegation is warranted. When the IG DoD requests a DoD Component IG to conduct an investigation, ensure that the DoD Component IG conducting the investigation is outside the immediate chain of command (as established under DoD Component regulations) of the member or former member submitting the allegation(s) and the individual(s) alleged to have taken the reprisal action.
Review and approve the results of investigations into alegations of violations of paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. conducted by DoD Component IGs. Initiate a follow-up investigation to
correct inadequacies, or ensure that the DoD Component IG concerned corrects them, if the review determines that an investigation is inadequate. Issue a report of investigation within 180 days of the receipt of an allegation of reprisal and/or restriction investigated by the IG DoD. The report of investigation shall include a thorough review of the facts and circumstances relevant to the allegation(s), relevant documents acquired during the investigation, and summaries or transcripts of interviews conducted. The report may include a recommendation(s) as to the disposition of the complaint. If a determination is made that the report cannot be issued within 180 days, notify the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Program Integration (DUSD(PI)), under the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the member or former member of the reasons for the delay and
when that report will be issued. Notify the DUSD(PI) of the results of the investigation of the allegations of reprisal conducted by the IG DoD and provide a copy of the report of investigation to the member or former member not later than 30 days after completion of the investigation. A copy
of the documents acquired during the investigation and summaries or transcripts of witness testimony shall be transmitted to the member or former member if he or she requests them. The copy of the report and supporting documents, if requested, released to the member or former
member shall include the maximum disclosure of information possible under law. Records that are not required to be disclosed under section 552 of Reference (d) shall not be disclosed. Advise the member or former member concerned that he or she may request review of the matter by the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) concerned.
At the request of a BCMR: Submit a copy of the report of investigation to the BCMR. Gather further evidence.
Conduct, or request a DoD Component IG to conduct, a separate investigation of the allegation(s) contained in the protected communication when: Such an investigation has not been initiated; or An investigation of the allegation(s) contained in the protected communication has been conducted and the IG DoD determines the investigation was biased or
inadequate. When an investigation under subparagraph is required, notify the DUSD(PI) of the results of the investigation and provide a copy of the report of investigation to the member or former member not later than 30 days after completion of the investigation. The report of investigation shall include a thorough review of the facts and circumstances relevant to the allegation, relevant documents acquired during the investigation, and summaries of interviews taken. A copy of the documents acquired during the investigation and summaries of witness testimony shall be transmitted to the member or former member if he or she requests them. The copy of the report released to the member or former member shall include the maximum disclosure of information possible under law. Records that are not required to be disclosed under section 552 of Reference (d) shall not be disclosed. The DUSD(PI), under the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, shall: Receive reports on the results of investigations conducted under this Directive and section 1034 of Reference (b). On behalf of the Secretary of Defense, within 90 days of receipt of a request submitted under Enclosure 3, section E3.3., review the final decision of the Secretary of the Military Department concerned on applications for correction of military records decided under
this Directive and section 1034 of Reference (b), and decide whether to uphold or reverse the decision of the Secretary of the Military Department concerned. The decision on behalf of the Secretary of Defense is final.  Have access to all research, reports, investigations, audits, reviews, documents, papers, or any other material necessary to carry out the responsibilities assigned to the DUSD(PI) by this Directive. If necessary, obtain for review and request the Secretary of the Military
Department concerned to comment on evidence considered by a BCMR when the Secretary of Defense is requested to reconsider the final decision of the Secretary of the Military Department. Notify the IG DoD and the Military Department IG concerned of decisions made for the Secretary of Defense on requests submitted under Enclosure 3, section E3.3. and issue
such DoD procedures as may be necessary to implement this section and the requirements of Enclosure 3, section E3.3.
The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall: Ensure that consideration of all military whistleblower allegations submitted under section 1034 of Reference (b) are thorough, objective, and timely, and that corrective actions are
taken promptly. Ensure that their respective Military Department IGs: Establish internal procedures for receiving, reporting, and investigating, under this Directive and section 1034 of Reference (b), allegations that the prohibitions of
paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. have been violated. Notify the IG DoD within 10 working days of receiving any allegation that
the prohibitions of paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. have been violated and provide a copy of the written complaint to the IG DoD. When an allegation of reprisal and/or restriction is made against a senior official of the Department of Defense, the provisions of DoD Directive 5505.06 (Reference (f)) shall also apply. Expeditiously determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation of an allegation that the prohibitions of paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. have been violated.
5.3.2.4. Forward to the IG DoD for review any determination that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant investigation of a reprisal and/or restriction allegation. If the IG DoD concurs with the determination of the Military Department IG concerned that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant investigation of the reprisal and/or restriction allegation, the
Military Department IG concerned shall so notify the member making the allegation. Expeditiously initiate an investigation, when it has been determined that an investigation is warranted, of an allegation that the prohibitions of paragraphs 4.2. and 4.4. have been violated, or upon receiving a request from the IG DoD. Allegations of restriction under paragraph 4.2. that are received independent of allegations of reprisal may be investigated using applicable DoD component regulations. Reports of investigation of such allegations shall be
forwarded to the IG DoD for approval. Provide the IG DoD with the report of investigation within 180 days of receiving the allegation of reprisal from the member or receiving a request from the IG DoD. The report shall include a thorough review of the facts and circumstances relevant to the
allegations, relevant documents acquired during the investigation, and summaries or transcripts of interviews conducted. The report may include a recommendation as to the disposition of the complaint. If the Military Department IG makes a determination that the report cannot be issued
within 180 days, notify the IG DoD, DUSD(PI), and the member or former member of the reason(s) for the delay and when the report will be issued. Notify the DUSD(PI) of the results of the investigation and provide a copy of the report of investigation to the member or former member not later than 30 days after the IG DoD approves the report of investigation. A copy of the documents acquired during the investigation and summaries or transcripts of witness testimony shall be transmitted to the member or former member if he or she requests them. The copy of the report, and supporting
documents, if requested, released to the member or former member shall include the maximum disclosure of information possible under law. Records that are not required to be disclosed under section 552 of Reference (d) shall not be disclosed. Advise the member or former member concerned that he or she may request review of the matter by a BCMR.

Implementspolicy and update responsibilities and procedures forinterservice and intragovernmental support (i.e., agreementsbetween United States Federal Government activities).

The Department of Defense will prescribe and enforce applicable ammunition and explosives standards in DoD 4145.26-M, for work performed under DoD contracts by contractors, in order to minimize the potential for mishaps that could interrupt DoD operations, delay project/product completion dates, adversely impact upon the DoD production base or capabilities, damage or destroy DoD-owned material/equipment, cause injury to DoD personnel, or endanger the safety of the general public.

To establish within the DoD a management information system capable of providing standardized information on acquisition positions and persons serving in acquisition positions, as set forth in this Instruction, to the Secretary of Defense.

The ITAR has been updated to reflect new licensing exemption requirements for exporting defense articles, technical data, and services using the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process. This change was published as a Final Rule in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No.141, 21 Jul 00 and is effective 1 Sep 00. The attached Security Assistance Management Manual incorporates this new policy.

Implementation of New Codes for the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) (DSCA 01-04)

The attached change to the Security Assistance Management Manual (SAMM) is in response to the United States General Accounting Office report (GAO/NSIAA-99-231, September 1999) which found problems with inadvertent FMS transfers of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) controlled items.  The report was critical of the FMS LOA review process with respect to controlling the transfer of items, manufacturing processes and technologies identified under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex. 

Designation of Military Department Cognizance of Commercial Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW

The SAMM, paragraph 70102.D. states that implementing agencies (IAs) ".must ensure that adequate controls exist to assure mathematical and factual integrity, and completeness, of the LOA package." However, recent discussions with our foreign customers as well as inputs received as part of our strategic planning efforts indicate that the quality of LOAs, amendments, and modifications need some improvement. As part of our oversight role, we have been doing "spot checks" of LOA documents received in DSCA for countersignature and have compiled a list of common/recurring problems. This list is attached for your use in improving the quality of the documents processed by your agency. The items listed represent a wide-range of problems. Some errors were serious enough to result in a rejection of the document(s) without countersignature. Other problems might not have caused a rejection, but should be noted so that future documents can be prepared correctly. We intend on publishing a similar list on a quarterly basis as dissemination of this information to all LOA-writing organizations should help reduce the number of repeat errors.

Section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act covers all Federal employees, however, the \r\nSecretary of Labor shall cooperate and consult with the heads of agencies to help them adopt safety \r\nand health programs.

This part prescribes policies and procedures to ensure that supplies and services acquired under Government contract conform to the contract’s quality and quantity requirements. Included are inspection, acceptance, warranty, and other measures associated with quality requirements.

This part --
(a) Gives instructions for using provisions and clauses in solicitations and/or contracts;
(b) Sets forth the solicitation provisions and contract clauses prescribed by this regulation; and
(c) Presents a matrix listing the FAR provisions and clauses applicable to each principal contract type and/or purpose (e.g., fixed-price supply, cost-reimbursement research and development).

On August 19, 1996, The National Security Industrial Association, in conjunction with the Aerospace Industries Association, the Electronic Industries Association, the Shipbuilding Council of America, and the American Shipbuilding Association, submitted for DoD recognition the Industry Standard Guidelines for Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS). The "Guidelines" were reviewed by the joint DoD team that is revising the DoD Cost/Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC) Joint Implementation Guide. The team, which has followed the progress of the industry standard since 1994, concluded that the industry guidelines are acceptable substitutes for the C/SCSC.

The SIT investigated the ability of ADS to support air-to-air missile testing. The test included two sequential phases, a Linked Simulators Phase (LSP) and a Live Fly Phase (LFP). Both phases incorporated one-versus-one scenarios based upon profiles flown during live test activities and limited target countermeasure capability.

With the implementation of the Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) in October 1990, transportation charges were included within the price of DBOF (now DWCF) items. Unfortunately, duplicate transportation charges sometimes resulted when customers also paid for Collect Commercial Bills of Lading (CCBLs) covering these same items. While the military departments, in conjunction with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), have worked to settle discrepancies that occurred during the FY91-FY95 timeframe, we need to ensure that these duplicate charges do not occur in the future.

This Section identifies and discusses the roles and responsibilities of the participants which comprise a Source Selection Organization for a non-major best value procurement.

"Best Value" refers to competitive, negotiated procurements in which the Government reserves the right to select the most advantageous offer by evaluating and comparing factors in addition to cost or price. 

One of the primary purposes of "discussions" is to provide the offerors an opportunity to discuss possible deficiencies identified in their proposals and to subsequently correct those deficiencies in their BAFOs. Discussions are conducted by the PCO who should be assisted, as necessary, by a team of contract, legal, and technical personnel.  

The intended use of this Cost Analysis Handbook (CAH) is to serve as a tool for those analysts tasked with conducting Life Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCEs) and/or other cost analyses for the various types of systems procured by the Marine Corps. 

The purpose of this chapter is to produce a consistent, standard format for those organizations performing cost estimates.  An outline of the procedures and processes are addressed in this chapter. Life cycle cost analysis is used to produce cost estimates for evaluating alternatives on a life cycle basis.  There is a standardized LCCE format that ensures a comprehensive and complete cost estimate report.  A successful cost estimate will focus on the following factors:  methodologies, assumptions, definition of terms, cost drivers, factors, cost estimating worksheets, and cost model structure.  Formal LCCEs are required for each Milestone Decision.  Additional reasons to conduct an LCCE include POM Initiative Development support and Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) validations.  Costs associated with the Research and Development (R&D), Investment, and Operations and Support (O&S) phases will be addressed within each estimate.

The Naval Sea Systems Command Source Selection Guide provides streamlined guidance to our headquarters and field acquisition personnel involved in the source selection process.  Its purpose is to provide a practical reference tool to explain the processes and techniques that can be used to achieve best value products and services through source selection.

Provides guidance and procedures preparing hazardous materials for military air shipments to ensure proper packing, packaging, marking, and preparation for transportation

As Federal employees develop and implement strategies for reengineering agency programs and operations, they should design management structures that help ensure accountability for results, and include appropriate, cost-effective controls. This Circular provides guidance to Federal managers on improving the accountability and effectiveness of Federal programs and operations by establishing, assessing, correcting, and reporting on management controls.

To establish policy for managing the Configuration Management and Life Cycle support of the Submarine Training
System Program. The Program consists of the training hardware, software, and technical training materials for the Combat Systems, Weapons, Safety of Ship, Electronics and Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E) equipment located at all
Submarine Learning Facilities, Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS) sites, and Guam.

Public Law 104-13
104th Congress
An Act to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes.
Note:  May 22, 1995 -- [S.244]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Note:  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.  Information resources management. assembled, Section 1.  Note:  44 USC101 note.  Short Title.  This Act may be cited as the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995”.

Secretaries ofthe Military Departments and Heads of Defense Agencies were requested to identify their IUID support in applicable budget exhibit submissions

Members of the DOD AT

Documentation and reporting of reliability of Army Materiel Systems

This document offers guidance on how to write performance specifications. The information is applicable to all types of materiel: systems, subsystems, assemblies, components, and parts.

The Logistics community revamped MIL-STD-2073-1C, the DoD Standard Practice for Military Packaging in October 1996. MIL-STD-2073-1C emphasizes the maximum use of commercial packaging for the Department, and specifies that military packaging is required only on items expected to enter the military distribution system. These exceptions include items intended for war reserve materiel, long-term storage, security assistance programs, or overseas shipments. Implementation of this new standard will result in cost savings on current contracts and cost avoidances on future contracts with no impact on mission accomplishment.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AND A GUIDE TO INCREASED RELIABILITY AND REDUCED LOGISTICS FOOTPRINT

This handbook is authorized for the U.S. Marine Corps acquisition workforce who are directly concerned with the acquisition, fielding and operational support of materiel systems or automated information systems. 

Update to Policy for Unique Identification (UID) of Tangible Items, New Equipment, Major Modifications, and Reprocurements and Spares, UID Equivalents.

Service acquisition executives: authorities and responsibilities

Selection for membership in an Acquisition Corps shall be made in accordance with criteria and procedures established by the Secretary of Defense.

Except as provided under subsection (b) and paragraph (3), the Secretary of each military department, acting through the service acquisition executive for that department, shall provide that any person who is assigned to a critical acquisition position shall be assigned to the position for not fewer than three years.

In this chapter, the term depot-level maintenance and repair means (except as provided in subsection (b)) material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance or repair is performed.

centage Limitation.— Not more than 50 percent of the funds made available in a fiscal year to a military department or a Defense Agency for depot-level maintenance and repair workload may be used to contract for the performance by non-Federal Government personnel of such workload for the military department or the Defense Agency. Any such funds that are not used for such a contract shall be used for the performance of depot-level maintenance and repair workload by employees of the Department of Defense...

This manual establishes a uniform system of stock control throughout the USAF by prescribing standardized procedures for the requisition, purchase, receipt, storage, stock control, issue, shipment disposition, identification of and accounting for supplies by the AF organizations, and, where applicable, by the reserve forces.

The Official Source Site for Air Force Administrative
Publications and Information Management Tools

This regulation assigns responsibilities and prescribes policies for the Army’s type classification (TC), materiel release
(MR), materiel fielding, and materiel transfer processes. The TC process ensures the materiel is acceptable for Army
use prior to spending of procurement funds at the full rate production (FRP) decision review. The MR process assures
that Army materiel is safe, suitable, and supportable. The materiel fielding and transfer processes assure the orderly and
effective deployment and transfer of Army equipment, including all necessary logistics support requirements.

Effective immediately, Mrs. Katrina McFarland shall perform the duties of the ASD(A) and may discharge all of the duties of the ASD(A) except those duties, if any, that qualify as "statutory" for purposes of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, as amended. Mrs. McFarland will continue to serve as the President, Defense Acquisition University. More on Mrs. McFarland's appointment can be found in the attached memo at https://dap.dau.mil/policy/Lists/Policy%20Documents/Attachments/3308/AssistantSecyOfDefenseAcq.pdf.

For product development programs, some understandable confusion exists as to how to implement both "should-cost" and "affordability as a requirement," particularly early in a program's life cycle before engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) and production. The two are compatible, but they must be balanced differently across the product life cycle. The emphasis prior to Milestone B should be on defining and achieving affordability targets. Past this point, the emphasis shifts to defining and achieving should-cost estimates. This memorandum offers greater detail on should cost and affordability.

The Defense Logistics Acquisition Directive (DLAD) implements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), and other DoD publications. It establishes procedures and delegations of authority governing the acquisition of supplies and services by the Defense Logistics Agency under Chapter 137, Title 10, of the United States Code or other statutory authority.

On September 14, the PDUSD(AT&L) issued Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) guidance and a newly developed LCSP outline. The guidance references earlier PDUSD(AT&L) direction to separate the LCSP from the Acquisition Strategy and requires an LCSP for all acquisition programs. The outline is designed to be a tool for programs to effectively and affordably satisfy life-cycle sustainment requirements. The PDUSD(AT&L) memo provides additional implementation detail.

C1.2.1  This manual provides policies and prescribes uniform procedures for recording inventory management data passed between elements of a single Service or Agency distribution system or between the various distribution systems of the Department of Defense.  The procedures govern the interchange of information for all materiel in the supply control/distribution systems and financial management of the DoD and other participating Agencies, unless specifically exempted by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics) (DUSD(L)).

While the Department is concerned about counterfeits in all supply classes, particular focus is required for mission critical components, critical safety items, electronic parts, and load bearing mechanical parts. DoD Components should immediately take action to decrease the probability of counterfeit items across the Department to including the actions prescribed in this memorandum.

This guide is designed to articulate the key techniques and practices for the use and collection of past performance information. It provides guidance to encourage the use of innovative techniques in acquiring best value goods and services. Its purpose is to serve as a practical reference tool regarding the Department of Defense (DoD) past performance policy.

This Directive reissues DoD Directive 3100.10 to update established DoD space policy and assigned responsibilities for space-related activities.  It cites the USD(AT&L)  as responsible to carry out space-related duties and responsibilities assigned in DoDD 5134.01 including serving as the OSD focal point for DoD space programs in coordination with other OSD stakeholders; and for promoting a robust space industrial base.

This Directive applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Unified Combatant 1 Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG, DoD), the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the Defense Agencies, and the DoD Field Activities (hereafter referred to collectively as “the DoD Components”).

DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program
References: (a) DoD Directive 5400.07, “DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Program,” October 28, 2005 (hereby canceled) (b) Section 552 of title 5, United States Code
(c) DoD 5400.7-R, “DoD Freedom of Information Act Program,”
September 4, 1998 (d) Executive Order 13392, “Improving Agency Disclosure of Information,” December 19, 2005
(e) through (i), Reissues Reference (a) to update policies and responsibilities for implementing the DoD FOIA Program in accordance with Reference (b) (commonly known as the “FOIA”). Continues to authorize Reference (c) to implement the FOIA Program. Implements Reference (d) within the Department of Defense. Continues to delegate authorities and responsibilities for the effective administration of the FOIA Program consistent with DoD Directive 5105.53 (Reference (e)). The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities in the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”). DoDD 5400.07, January 2, 2008

Establishes policy and prescribes the criteria and responsibilities for creation, maintenance, and dissemination of UID data standards for discrete entities. UID standards will enable on-demand information in a net-centric environment, which is an essential element in the accountability, control, and management of DoD assets and resources.

Establishes an overarching Urban Training Facilities Strategy to synchronize individual DoD Component strategies (see Reference (d)) and joint working groups.  Establishes and implements policy and assigns responsibilities for evaluating and certifying military projects to upgrade existing or construct new urban training facilities.

This Instruction establishes policy and assigns responsibilities for the DoD DEMIL program in accordance with the authority in DoD Directive 5134.01 (Reference (a)) for mandatory DEMIL training, oversight of DEMIL functions, DEMIL code assignment accuracy, and DEMIL life cycle planning in accordance with section 1051 of Public Law 105-261 (Reference (b)).

Establishes a simplified and flexible management framework for translating capability needs and technology opportunities, based on approved capability needs, into stable, affordable,
and well-managed acquisition programs that include weapon systems, services, and automated information systems (AISs).

Implements reference (a) and provides uniform guidance for managing positions and career development of the Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L) Workforce. This includes the designation and identification of AT&L positions; specification of position requirements; attainment and maintenance of AT&L competencies through education, training and experience; AT&L Performance Learning Model; management of the Defense Acquisition Corps; selection and placement of personnel in AT&L positions; and workforce metrics.

Implements policy for overseeing, coordinating, and synchronizing the DoD-wide distribution processes, including force projection, sustainment, and redeployment/retrograde
operations.  Specifies the functional responsibilities of the DPO, and outlines the interface with the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise (JDDE).

It is DoD policy under DoD Directive 5535.3 (reference (a)) that, consistent with U.S. security objectives set out at 10 U.S.C.2501 (reference (c)), T2 activities shall be an integral element of the DoD national security mission, a high-priority role in all DoD acquisition programs, and recognized as a key activity of the DoD laboratories and/or technical activities and all other DoD activities that may make use of or contribute to T2.

Underscore the importance of system reliability as a major problem for Department of Defense (DoD) acquisitions

Establishes policy in accordance with DoD Directive 5134.01 (Reference (a)) to implement and institutionalize the requirements of section 805 of Public Law 111-84 (Reference (b)). Reference (b) directs a number of changes to DoD policies designed to improve weapon systems life cycle management and product support by establishing new requirements that directly impact acquisition, fielding, and sustainment decisions.

Is effective upon its publication to the DoD Issuances Website; it shall be incorporated into DoD Instruction (DoDI) 5000.02 (Reference (c)), DoDI 5000.66 (Reference (d)), the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (Reference (e)), and the Defense Acquisition Workforce Career Management Manual (Reference (f)). This DTM shall expire effective August 1, 2013.

This DTM, in accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5134.01 (Reference (a)):
• Establishes policy for petroleum operating stock (OS).
• Clarifies the basis for petroleum war reserve stock (PWRS).
• Updates responsibilities and procedures for management of bulk petroleum stock levels.
• Is effective January 3, 2013; it will be incorporated into DoDD 4140.25 (Reference (b)), DoDD 5101.08 (Reference (c)), and DoD 4140.25-M (Reference (d)). This DTM will expire effective July 2, 2013.

Operations and Support (O&S) costs comprise 60 to 70 percent of total ownership costs. We must find ways to lower our O&S expenditures while maintaining the right readiness for our Warfighters. A key method to lowering O&S costs is the implementation of sustainment strategies that optimize readiness at best value. Appropriate use of Performance-Based Logistics (PBLs) will help to achieve affordable sustainment strategies and is a method for achieving our Better Buying Power (BBP) goals.

On June 23, 2011, PDUSD(AT&L) issued this direction designed to improve the effectiveness of the milestone review process. The new procedures ensure that there is an adequate opportunity for MDA review of program plans prior to release of the Final RFP, the point at which the Department's requirements, schedule, planned program content, and available funding should be firm and available for review. These procedural changes constitute expected business practice and shall be applied to programs in acquisition categories I and IA and II-IV.

USD(AT&L) Memo Indirect Cost Limitation for Basic Research Awards

Updated methodological guidance to calculate the Fully Burdened Cost of Energy (FBCE) in Analysis of Alternatives (AOAs) and in other acquisition tradespace decisions, with CAPE has now approved.

This memorandum supersedes the December 26, 2007, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration memorandum, "Designation of Major Automated Information System Programs and Information Technology Services Acquisitions Oversight List."

The definitions of a MAIS program and Other Major Information Technology Investment Program have been codified in section 2445a of title 10, U.s.C. The updated MAIS Oversight List (Attachment I) includes baselined and un-baselined programs that meet these definitions and must report under chapter 144A of title 10, U.S.c. The list is sorted by the lead DoD acquisition component and indicates each program's Acquisition Category, Milestone Decision Authority, Overarching Integrated Product Team, and Joint Capability Area assignments.

This supplements my memorandum of March 20, 1997, concerning Micro-purchases.The March 20, 1997 memorandum requires a written determination by a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES), Flag Officer, or General Officer that a contract or purchase order may, under certain circumstances, be used in lieu of the Government-wide commercial purchase card for micro-purchases.

Subtitle C of Title III of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA FY 2012) amended title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), in several areas that significantly impact our planning, performance, and reporting of depot-level maintenance. The amended statutes are 10 U.S.C. § 2460,10 U.S.C. § 2464, 10 U.S.C. § 2366 and 10 U.S .C. § 2474. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a standard DoD-wide interpretation and guidance related to the revised language in these statutes and to delegate the waiver authority provided for at 10 U.S.C. § 2464(b)(I)(A) and (B), as enacted in section.327 of the NDAA FY 2012, relating to the determination that a weapon system or item of military equipment is not an enduring element of the national defense strategy and that, in the case of nuclear aircraft carrier refueling, fulfilling the requirement is not economically feasible.

MFOQA builds upon a commercial aviation process which uses operational trend analysis of enhanced flight data to better identify hazards, to increase operational efficiency, and to provide more effective risk management.  The MFOQA process has the potential to reduce aircraft flight mishaps.

Revised Real Property and Installations Lifecycle Management (RPILM) Investment Review Board (IRB) Charter

Logistics CoP and
Government Property SIA

For those programs where the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) is the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA), OIPTs are a wellestablished and integral part of our defense acquisition oversight and milestone decision review process. While OIPTs are not decision-making bodies, they provide a mechanism to coordinate and conduct staff preparation for DAE program decisions and to help execute those decisions. This memorandum is intended to clarify the expectations for OSD OIPT Leaders and the respective OIPTs that they lead.

This Guidebook is intended to be used as a companion document to SECNAVINST 5000.2E. It contains citations from SECNAVINST 5000.2E and other mandatory references for process clarification. While the Guidebook does not introduce new or additional mandatory policy, the dynamic nature of the Capabilities Development Process demands continuous communication among all participants. As the Capabilities Development and Acquisition Management Process mature, policy changes may affect acquisition strategies and timelines. Timely assessment of the change, coupled with the appropriate acquisition strategy adjustment, may be vital to the preservation of an acquisition timeline. This Guidebook references DoDI 5000.2 of 8 Dec 2008 and some of its paragraphs. The acquisition decision points and phase names of this Guideboko have been updated per DoDI 5000.02 of 8 Deb 2008.

On September 14,2010, the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) directed the manager of each major program to conduct a Should-Cost analysis justifying each element of program cost and showing how it is improving year by year or meeting other relevant benchmarks for value. Attached Should-Cost Templates are provided to guide PMs of ACAT I programs to prepare their Should-Cost information for presentation to the Milestone Decision Authority at decision meetings and execution reviews (MS B and later). PMs for ACAT II and III programs are also encouraged to use the templates as guidance.

Acquisition workforce members have been unable to complete required online certification training due to lack of access to the online training system. In recognition of the impact on workforce members, the Defense Acquisition Workforce Management Group (WMG) recommended that the workforce receive an extension of time to allow for completion of online training and requesting/receiving certification under FY 2011 certification requirements. This memorandum includes details for that extension.