Summarize any plans for cooperative development with foreign governments or cognizant organizations. List the MOAs in place and identify the contracting activities.

Summarize plans to increase the opportunity for coalition interoperability as part of the developing DoD program.

Employ the AT&L-developed template [1] to provide a coalition interoperability section in the Acquisition Strategy. Using the template will satisfy the cooperative opportunities document requirement of 10 USC 2350a.

CONSIDERATIONS

Evaluate cooperative opportunities with NATO, NATO organizations, member nations of NATO, major non NATO allies and friendly foreign countries (hereafter referred to as "international partners".

Indicate whether or not a similar project in development, production or sustainment by the Department of Defense provides interoperability with international partners’ systems that military operations rely upon and should be maintained in the new program.

Identify any relevant cooperative project work already conducted or under current collaboration with potential international partners (including at subcomponent levels) that can be utilized as a basis for cooperation in the new development or production program.

Assess whether any of these projects could satisfy, or could be modified in scope so as to satisfy (at the system of component level), the military requirements of the project of the United States under consideration by the Department of Defense.

State the determination of whether the capability would be enhanced by engaging critical global or regional partners in the development or production of the system for which new cooperative relationships are needed.

Assess the advantages and disadvantages with regard to program timing, developmental and life cycle costs, technology sharing, and Rationalization, Standardization, and Interoperability (RSI) of seeking to structure a cooperative development program with one or more potential international partners.

Address how current political and strategic guidance for cooperation affects opportunities for cooperative development of the capability with coalition partners (QDR, GEF, NSS, NSPDs, etc.).

Address releasability of technical information and exportability to potential international partners.

Summarize any plans for cooperative development with potential international partners. List any international agreements planned or existing (e.g. MOAs, MOUs, etc) in place and identify any current contracting activities with potential international partners.

CONSIDERATION

Include a proposed time phased approach for cooperative opportunities to integrate with acquisition schedules and milestones.

2.8.9.3. Foreign Military Sales

Specify the potential (MS A) or plans (MS B; MS C) for Foreign Military and/or Direct Commercial Sale and the impact upon program cost due to program protection and incorporation of exportability features.

CONSIDERATION

For EMD AS and P&D AS: If Foreign Military and/or Direct Commercial Sale are anticipated, include Planned Timelines for the following:

Foreign Military Sales
Direct Commercial sales
Loans of equipment to support operations

2.8.10. Industrial Capability and Manufacturing Readiness

2.8.10.1. Industrial Capability

Summarize the results of industrial capability analysis (public and private) to design, develop, produce, support, and, if appropriate, restart the acquisition program.

CONSIDERATIONS

If a TDS, identify and address how and when the industrial capability analysis (public and private) to design, develop, produce, support, and, if appropriate, restart the acquisition program will be performed in the TD Phase. Summarize the relevant findings of the Analysis of Alternatives, when applicable.
For an AS, specify the impact of this program’s acquisition strategy on the national technology and industrial base. Briefly summarize the analysis used to make this determination.
- Specify the findings relevant to (1) a competitive marketplace; (2) the viability of any associated essential industrial/technological capabilities; and (3) the potential viability of non-selected firms as enduring competitors for defense products
For an AS - If the industrial capability analysis revealed constraints, summarize how they will be managed, and the plan for future assessment, including frequency.

2.8.10.2. Industrial and Manufacturing Readiness (not applicable to software-intensive programs without production components)

CONSIDERATIONS

Estimate (Technology Development Strategy), define (Engineering & Manufacturing Development Acquisition Strategy), or update (Production &Deployment Acquisition Strategy) the risk of industry being unable to provide program design or manufacturing capabilities at planned cost and schedule.
(For Acquisition Strategies only) Identify the Manufacturing management approach and Quality Management systems and summarize how they will contribute to minimizing cost, schedule, and performance risks throughout the product life cycle.

2.8.10.3. Sustaining Industrial Capabilities

(For Acquisition Strategy only) Summarize the make-or-buy approach to establish and maintain access to competitive suppliers for critical areas at system, subsystem, and component level (e.g., requiring an open-systems-architecture or a make-or-buy plan). List critical items and their sources.

When the analysis indicates that the needed industrial capabilities are in danger of being lost, the strategy should indicate whether government action is required to preserve the industrial capability. The strategy should also address product technology obsolescence, replacement of limited-life items, regeneration options for unique manufacturing processes, and conversion to performance specifications at the subsystems, component, and spares levels.

Identify any planned or completed MOAs.

NOTE

When appropriate, Program Managers should consider including industrial surge requirements and capability for operationally-expendable items such as munitions, spares, and troop support items in their Program Strategies. Production bottlenecks at both the prime and sub-tier supplier levels for high use/high volume programs in an immediate warfare construct should be cited. Surge capability can be included in evaluation criteria for contract award.

2.8.11. Life-Cycle Signature Support

If a Technology Development Strategy, provide a table (see example Table 6) that indicates the program life-cycle signature support requirements. Identify the mission data type (signatures, electronic warfare integrated reprogramming, order of battle, geospatial intelligence, and system characteristics and performance data sets); specific subcategories, if known (Radar, Thermal, Acoustic, etc.); the domain (Space, Air, Land, Naval, Missile Defense, etc.); subcategories within the domain (e.g., for Air domain: ‘Fighter Aircraft’); and data fidelity required, if known (e.g., dB, °C, resolution, Hz, etc.). If additional or more-specific requirements have been identified, they should be included.

Table 6. Notional Table of Life-Cycle Signature Support Requirements

Life-Cycle Signature Support Requirements
Mission Type	Mission Type Subcategory	Domain	Domain Subcategory	Data Fidelity

Life-cycle signature support funding requirements will be reflected in the program funding summary (see Paragraph 2.8.8.1 and Figure 4).

CONSIDERATION

In order to estimate the funding requirements, the Program Manager must identify the systems and subsystems of the program that require signature or intelligence mission data in order to deliver the intended capabilities.

NOTES

A signature-dependent program is one that utilizes or is comprised of a sensor, system, or process that relies on signatures or signature data to successfully perform a task or mission. Signatures are defined as: a distinctive basic characteristic or set of characteristics that consistently re-occurs and uniquely identifies a piece of equipment, activity, individual, or event and could be defined in a variety of phenomenology such as acoustic, radio frequency, visible wavelengths, ocean wake, olfactory, etcetera.
New terminology is being developed to be used in lieu of signatures, specifically intelligence mission data, however their meanings and implications are the same.
Intelligence mission data is DoD intelligence used for programming platform mission systems in development, testing, operations and sustainment including, but not limited to, the following functional areas: signatures, EWIR, OB, C&P, and GEOINT. IMD does not include products or information regarding foreign threats or systems unless it is specifically to be used in mission systems such as a mission computer or sensor’s threat library. IMD does not include signatures, EWIR, OB, C&P, GEOINT or modeling and simulation data that is to be used in assessments, documents or simulations such as the Joint Country Force Assessment, System Threat Assessment Reports, or war fighting analysis performed for budget or requirements development.
Intelligence mission data, or signatures, are needed for an increasing number and frequently increasingly complex program system that are needed for target identification, non-cooperative combat identification, and blue force tracking, etcetera.
DoDD 5250.01 requires that developmental acquisition programs identify, capture, and address the signatures essential to the development, testing, fielding, operation, and maintenance of required weapons, smart munitions, sensors, and systems capabilities at each program milestone and prior to proceeding to the Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP), production and/or fielding decision. Fielded systems that are signature-dependent but have deficiencies in data and their ability to discriminate friendly from adversarial targets should also consider engaging the Intelligence Community to attain needed data.

2.8.12. Military Equipment Valuation

Federal accounting standards require military equipment to be capitalized on the Department’s financial statements. For Milestone C and the Full-Rate Production Decision, provide the following information for any program, project, product, or system that has deliverable end items with a unit cost at or above $100,000 (the current capitalization threshold):

A level 2 work breakdown structure (as described in MIL_HDBK-881A) for reporting Military Equipment Valuation and Accountability;
The end item(s) meeting the unit cost threshold (i.e., $100,000);
The government furnished property that will be included in the end item;
Other deliverables that will accompany the end item (e.g., manuals, technical data, etc.); and
Other types of deliverables that will be purchased with program funding (e.g., initial spares, support equipment, special tooling and test equipment, etc.), but cannot be directly attributed to a specific end item.

(NOTE: The unit cost can be calculated by summing the estimated cost of the end item with the estimated costs of all associated government furnished equipment, training manuals, technical data, engineering support, etc., NOT including spares and support equipment. For additional information, see:

Top of page

Previous and Next Page arrows