Technical Control and Analysis-Product Improvement Program (TCAC PIP)

---

AN/MYQ-7 Intelligence Analysis System (IAS)

---

Title: U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Procedures Handbook; September 1999

Chapter 12 -- Milestone Reviews

References:

(a) Public Law 98-94, Goldwater-Nichols Act

(b) DoD Regulation 5000.2-R, Mandatory Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Acquisition Programs, March 15, 1996

(c) SECNAVINST 5420.188E, Acquisition Category (ACAT) Program Decision Process, December 11, 1997

(d) SECNAVINST 5000.2B, Implementation of Mandatory Procedures for Major and Non-Major Defense Acquisition Programs Major and Non-Major Information Technology Acquisition Programs, December 6, 1996

(e) TM 4420-15/1, Life Cycle Logistics and the Material Fielding Process, January, 1998

(1) List of Functional Points of Contact
(2) Sample MCPDM Documentation Staffing E-Mail
(3) Sample Independent Program Assessment (IPA)
(4) Sample MCPDM Briefing
(5) Sample Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)
(6) Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) Distribution List

1. -- Background.

Reference (a) identifies the requirement for a streamlined chain of accountability and authority for acquisition matters. Reference (b) implements that requirement within the Department of Defense (DoD). Fundamental to implementing this streamlined chain of command is the identification of a Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) as the single focal point for programmatic decisions. The MDA for Marine Corps Acquisition Category (ACAT) IC, IAC and II programs is the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) (ASN(RDA)). The MDA for Marine Corps ACAT ID programs is the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) (USD(A&T)). The MDA for Marine Corps ACAT IAM programs is the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) (ASD(C3I)). Commander, Marine Corps Systems Command (COMMARCORSYSCOM) is the MDA for Marine Corps ACAT III and IV programs, Marine Corps Information Technology (IT) ACAT III and IV programs, as well as Abbreviated Acquisition Programs (AAP) and IT AAP programs that have not been further delegated (Chapter 3 of this handbook addresses ACAT designation in greater detail). At major milestones, the MDA reviews programs to determine their suitability for entry into the next phase of acquisition. At that time, the Program Manager (PM) is responsible for presenting in accordance with the procedures in reference (c) the program to the MDA and other principals at a Marine Corps Program Decision Meeting (MCPDM). The MCPDM principals are senior level departmental, component or service officials (depending on the ACAT) representing important functional constituencies. Enclosure (1) provides points of contact and those commands or agencies identified with an * are considered the MCPDM principals. The staff of the MDA facilitates the MCPDM process ensuring that the principals receive appropriate milestone documentation and that the MDA receives a staff recommendation. The MDA documents his milestone decision in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM).

2. -- Discussion.

The purpose of the MCPDM is to determine:

1. Where the program is versus where the program should be (from a cost, schedule, and performance standpoint)
2. Where the program is going and how the PM proposes to get it there
3. What risks exist in the program and how the PM will mitigate those risks
4. The affordability of the PM's proposed approach

Depending on the degree of complexity of the program, the MCPDM process may vary from a simple staffing of documentation (paper MCPDM) to a series of briefings to MCPDM principals culminating in a formal briefing to the MDA. The role of the MDA's staff is to ensure that the PM presents all programmatic issues to the MDA in a manner that will result in a decision.

The MCPDM process is fundamentally the same regardless of whom is designated as MDA. However, the role of the staff changes and the list of MCPDM principals adjusts somewhat. By virtue of being a systems commander, COMMARCORSYSCOM is not the decision authority for ACAT I or II Marine Corps programs.

1. a. Milestone Documentation. Documentation is the primary means for the staff and the PM to provide the MDA and the MCPDM principals with the information needed to make milestone recommendations and decisions. In general:
   1. Documentation is limited to that required to support the purpose of the review and to that required by statute, regulation, or directive
   2. The scope and formality of the documentation required to support the review depends on the program's ACAT
   3. Typical milestone documents tailored for the specific milestone and complexity of the program include:
      1. Mission Need Statement (MNS) (required at MS 0) or Operational Requirements Document (ORD) (required at milestones I - III)
      2. Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) or Tailored Executive Analysis (TEA) (required at MS I)
      3. Acquisition Strategy (AS) (required at MS I -- III)
      4. Acquisition Program Baseline Agreement (APBA) (required at MS I -- III)
      5. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) (required at MS I-III) and Operational Test & Evaluation Report (required at MS III)
      6. Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E) Report (required at MS II)
      7. Environmental, Safety & Health Evaluation (required at MS I-III)
      8. System Threat Assessment (required at all MSs)
      9. Risk Assessment (required at MS I-III)
      10. Program Life Cycle Cost Estimate (PLCCE) (required at MS I -- III)
2. The PM should ensure that he has reached agreement with the MDA on the specific milestone documentation required to support the MCPDM. For ACAT III & IV programs, the ADM from the prior milestone will usually address this. In any case, Part 5, paragraph 5.8 of reference (d) provides additional guidance with regard to typical milestone documentation requirements.
3. b. Delegation. Reference (d) allows the Commander to delegate his MDA to Directors/PMs for ACAT IV programs. Using this authority, the Commander frequently delegates MDA for Abbreviated Acquisition Programs (AAP) to Directors/PMs. Additionally, the Commander delegates MDA authority for Information Technology (IT) AAPs to Commanding Generals, Commanding Officers and Headquarters, Marine Corps (HQMC) Flag/SES level officials serving as PMs. Consistent with Part 1, paragraph 1.3.6.3 of reference (d), the delegated PM or official should use this chapter as a guide but is free to streamline MCPDM procedures as appropriate. Delegation is done formally via a memorandum from COMMARCORSYSCOM to the specific billet (Director, Program Manager, Commanding General, Commanding Officer). Delegation is typically done as part of the MS-I decision although it may occur later in the program's life cycle.

Process

1. a. ACAT III & IV Programs. The steps described below and displayed in Figure 12-1 are recommended to complete a Milestone Review for an ACAT III or IV Marine Corps acquisition program in which the Milestone Review and Decision will be accomplished through a formal MCPDM. This process applies only for programs for which COMMARCORSYSCOM is the MDA. It is incumbent upon individuals who have received delegated MDA to tailor this process for their use. As each acquisition program has its unique characteristics, the staff develops and tailors a review schedule for each program at the Initial Planning Meeting described below. MDAs are strongly encouraged to use the services of a staff organization such as PAE to perform and provide an assessment independent of the PM's which the MDA will balance with the PM's assessment in making the milestone decision. PAE is available to assist all MDAs in MARCORSYSCOM in this capacity.
   1. (1) MCPDM Planning Meeting (Pre-MCPDM). Approximately six months prior to a desired milestone review date, the PM should contact the Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PAE), and schedule a Pre-MCPDM Initial Planning Meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to assess the status of the program, identify and establish the schedule of activities necessary for the execution of the Milestone Review. The PAE analyst assigned to the specific program chairs the meeting and coordinates attendance. At a minimum, the following organizations should provide representation:
      1. Marine Corps Program Management Office (PMO)
      2. MARCORSYSCOM Program Support (PS)
      3. MARCORSYSCOM (PAE)
      4. MARCORSYSCOM Deputy for Financial Management (DFM)
      5. MARCORSYSCOM Contracts Directorate (CT)
      6. Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) Warfighting Division/Integration Division (WDID) & Requirements Division
      7. Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA)
      8. ASN(RDA) Expeditionary Forces Program (EFP) (Office representative invited)

1. (2) Planning Notice. If the results of the Initial Planning Meeting indicate the program is ready to move forward to a Milestone Review, the Director, PAE, issues a Planning Notice within a week. This letter documents the schedule of activities requiring completion during the Milestone Review process, identifies issues to be addressed during the review and provides notification to the MDA that a milestone is impending.
2. (3) Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA). The purpose of the ILA is to ensure that supportability aspects of the program have been adequately addressed to the level required for the specific acquisition phase. For programs in which the COMMARCORSYSCOM is the MDA, the ILA is conducted by the Director, Program Support in accordance with Chapter 5 of reference (e). For delegated programs the Director/Program Manager may either use his/her own personnel or use the services of the Director, Program Support. An ILA is required for all programs and is conducted only in preparation for a MS II, III or fielding decision. For MS I, PS will conduct an informal certification review of the program to determine if processes and documentation that are in place adequately address logistics elements. At the completion of the certification review/ILA, a memorandum is submitted to the PM and to the Director, PAE, summarizing the conclusions of the review/ILA and outlining any corrective actions recommended. The PAE analyst includes the ILA report or a "Logistics Supportability Certification" memo as part of the formal program documentation and addresses report conclusions in his Independent Program Assessment (IPA).
3. (4) Documentation Staffing. The Program Manager should provide a copy of the milestone documents to the PAE Analyst as it is completed. The PAE analyst retains the documentation and approximately one month prior to the scheduled milestone, staffs the documentation to the MCPDM principals. Enclosure (1) provides a list of the office codes for functional points of contact that act as the MCPDM focal point for each principal. Enclosure (2) contains a sample of a staffing e-mail. This staffing process typically requires two weeks.
4. (5) IPA. Once the MCPDM documentation is in staffing, the PAE analyst begins preparing the IPA. The analyst bases his/her IPA remarks on his/her analysis of the program, the contents of the milestone documents, and comments received during staffing. Enclosure (3) contains a sample IPA. Note that the analyst provides a staff recommendation regarding readiness of the program to proceed to the next acquisition phase and recommends exit criteria applicable to the next milestone. Prior to signature, the analyst forwards the completed IPA to the PM to ensure that the PM agrees, at least on the identity of the issues. Having completed coordination with the PM, the analyst signs the IPA, forwards it to the Director, PAE, who endorses it and provides it and the program documentation to the MDA. The MDA should have the IPA no later than one week prior to the date of the milestone to allow adequate time for review.
5. (6) MCPDM. Approximately one week prior to the scheduled MCPDM, the PM provides copies of the decision briefing to the Director, PAE, for distribution to the MCPDM principals. Enclosure (4) contains a sample PM MCPDM brief. MARCORSYSCOM conducts the MCPDM itself in accordance with the procedures contained in reference (c). The PM provides the decision briefing during the meeting. If it is a Milestone (MS)-III briefing, and MCOTEA conducted operational testing (OT), they will also provide a briefing. The Director, PS, will discuss any supportability issues and the Director, PAE, will discuss the staff position.
6. (7) Paper MCPDM. For milestone decisions in which there are no issues, the MDA may elect to permit a paper MCPDM. The MDA may make the decision to switch to strictly a staffing process at any point during the normal MCPDM process. In a paper MCPDM, the staff limits the number of principals involved to a minimum, and the PM presents no formal milestone briefing.
7. (8) ADM. When COMMARCORSYSCOM is the MDA, the Director, PAE, will prepare an ADM for the MDA's signature that documents the decisions made as a result of the MCPDM. He may either present the ADM for signature at the MCPDM or forward it to the Commander shortly thereafter. The ADM will always be coordinated with the PM before being submitted to the MDA for signature. When a Director/Program Manager is the MDA, the PMO staff will prepare the ADM. Enclosure (5) provides a sample ADM. The ADM will also establish the documentation required for presentation at the next milestone and will establish exit criteria for entry into the next phase. Enclosure (6) provides a listing of those offices that receive copies of the ADM. PAE maintains copies of all ADMs in the Command Automated Program/Information System (CAPS).

1. b. ACAT II Programs. The steps described below and displayed in Figure 12-2 are required to complete a Milestone Review for an ACAT II Marine Corps acquisition program in which the Milestone Review and Decision will be accomplished through the means of a formal MCPDM.
   1. (1) Initial Planning Meeting. The same as described in paragraph 3a(1). ASN(RDA) Expeditionary Forces Programs (EFP) should be a mandatory attendee at this meeting.

1. (2) Planning Meeting (ASN(RDA)). Following agreement within MARCORSYSCOM as to the policy, procedures and schedule of events leading up to the milestone review, the Director, PAE, schedules a planning meeting with the appropriate staff members of the DASN(RD&A)(EFP). This event should occur within two weeks of the Initial Planning Meeting. The PM presents a briefing that provides the background and status of the program and outlines the events and activities planned to accomplish the milestone review. The DASN representative provides relevant guidance regarding the activities planned. If the MCPDM is for an MS-III decision, MCOTEA should be in attendance. If the AOA was accomplished by the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), a CNA representative should be in attendance to address their AOA results and a representative of the Naval Center for Cost Analysis (NCCA) to address costing issues.
2. (3) Planning Notice. The same as described in paragraph 3a(2) except that the focus is at the ASN(RDA) level.
3. (4) ARB. The purpose of the ARB is to prepare the IPA and assure that the program is ready for presentation. Reference (c) provides ARB policy guidance. The Commander MARCORSYSCOM chairs the ARB that has representation from offices of the MCPDM principals. The Director, PAE, acting as Executive Secretary, supports the Chairman by coordinating staff activities relevant to preparing the IPA. Depending on the complexity of the program, activities may range from a simple documentation staffing to the creation of separate committees to evaluate cost/schedule, technical and management issues. The Commander may elect to formally convene the ARB and receive formal staff briefings.
4. (5) Logistics Assessment. The same as described in paragraph 3a(3).
5. (6) IPA. The same as described in paragraph 3a(5) except that the analyst preparing the IPA may be summarizing committee reports instead of staffing comments. The Director, PAE, provides the ARB report to the Commander for signature. The Commander should have the IPA no later than one month prior to the date of the milestone to allow adequate time for review and ASN(RDA) staff discussions.
6. (7) Strategy Meeting. Subsequent to completion of the ARB, the Director, PAE, schedules a strategy meeting with appropriate members of the ASN(RDA) staff and MARCORSYSCOM. The purpose of the meeting is to review the results of the ARB (the IPA) and resolve any outstanding issues prior to confirmation of the MCPDM schedule at ASN(RDA). After the strategy session, the Commander signs out correspondence forwarding the IPA and a draft ADM to ASN(RDA).
7. (8) Paper MCPDM. See the discussion in paragraph 3a(8). Even for ACAT II programs, if there are no issues, the MDA may elect to permit a paper MCPDM. If the PM desires to explore this possibility, he should discuss this approach with the Director, PAE, who, in turn will discuss it during meetings with the ASN(RDA) staff.
8. (9) MCPDM. The same as described in paragraph 3a(6) except that the ASN(RDA) staff conducts the MCPDM.
9. (10) ADM. The same as described in paragraph 3a(8) except that the ASN(RDA) staff prepares the final ADM after the MCPDM.

From: maj douglas e mason@pae@marcorsyscom, on 7/11/97 10:18 am:

To: capt kelly r bole@admin@mcotea quantico, gs13 randy f delarm@csle@marcorsyscom, gs13 sally a amberger@lpm@hqmc, gysgt james e harris@aab@hqmc, ltcol arthur h sass@lpm@hqmc, ltcol david t israel@actb@mcotea quantico, ltcol dennis c sorrell@rqmnts div@mccdc, ltcol john m dunn@wdid@mccdc, ltcol william a reed@rpa@hqmc, maj alan f williams@actb@mcotea quantico, maj michael m frazier@wdid@mccdc, maj robert j cline@rqmnts div@mccdc, maj roger l pollard@poe@hqmc, maj thomas d jagusch@tfs division@mccdc, maj william e harris@rps@hqmc, mgysgt bobby l young@manpower@hqmc, msgt allen w herridge@c4@hqmc, sgt darian e hines@c4@hqmc, ssgt gerard j calvin@c4@hqmc, ssgt janet k pruitt@manpower@hqmc

cc: gysgt michele a gonzales@c4iic@marcorsyscom

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There will be a Manpack Secondary Imagery Distribution System (SIDS) MCPDM in the Hochmuth Hall conference room at 0900, 29 July. Attached is the Program Manager's Acquisition Strategy. Please provide your principal's comments/concurrence by 22 July. The Program Manager is asking for a Milestone III procurement and fielding decision.

Please contact the project officer, GySgt Gonzales, if you wish to see any additional programmatic documentation (e.g. MNS,ORD, COEA, LCCE, User Evaluation Results, etc.). If you are not the right point of contact for MCPDM matters at your command, please notify me so I can modify my list accordingly.

Very respectfully,

Maj Mason

Maj D. E. Mason
Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate
Marine Corps Systems Command
DSN 278-2427, ext 5027, COML (784)
Masond1@mqg.usmc.mil

1. Decision Requested: A Milestone III (MS-III) production decision is requested for both the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP. A MS-III fielding decision is also requested for the MEF IAS.

2. Program Description: The MEF IAS and TCAC PIP are semi-automated intelligence fusion centers integrated into HMMWV-mounted standard tactical shelters. The MEF IAS is a two vehicle all-source variant, whereas the TCAC PIP is a single vehicle Signals Intelligence and Electronic Warfare (SIGINT/EW) configuration. Key elements of Marine Air-Ground Task Force Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (MAGTF C4I), they are comprised primarily of Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS), Government Off-the-Shelf (GOTS), and nondevelopmental Marine Common Hardware Suite (MCHS) equipment.

ACAT IV(T)		Project Number C0062
MEF IAS Program Element:206625M		TCAC PIP Program Element:305885G
Prepared by: ________________________________Date_____________
	L. E. LEGGETT, LtCol USMCDefense Systems AnalystProgram Analysis and Evaluation,Marine Corps Systems Command
Approved by: ________________________________Date_____________
	R. W. BATES, Col USMCDirectorProgram Analysis and Evaluation,Marine Corps Systems Command

NOTE: This document uses the term "Integrated Program Summary" throughout. The term "Acquisition Strategy" is currently used.

1. Program Execution Status

1. a. Exit Criteria (prior Milestone). The MEF IAS program achieved a Milestone II decision, including a Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) approval on 19 January 1993. At that time, approval was granted for the production and procurement of a maximum of two MEF IAS systems for use in IOT&E. The exit criteria assigned to the MEF IAS program at Milestone II called for a successful logistics assessment review and a formal Milestone III review.
2. b. Subsequent Guidance, Decisions, Congressional Actions
   1. (1) On 12 October 1993, COMMARCORSYSCOM approved combining the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs into a single program.
   2. (2) On 27 October 1993, COMMARCORSYSCOM approved the procurement of 12 TCAC workstations for use in Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. The workstations were to be identical in configuration to those previously authorized for the IAS suites.
   3. (3) In March 1995, the two programs were separated during a C4I directorate reorganization.
   4. (4) On 11 December 1995, COMMARCORSYSCOM approved procurement of 24 SPARC-20, vice RSC-1X, terminals and associated peripherals to permit commonalty of hardware components with MEF IAS and IAS suites.
   5. (5) During July 1996, the two programs were combined again following a C4I directorate reorganization.
3. c. Cost Estimate at Completion. (For an IT Program, indicate Estimated Program Cost (inception through fielding).) Cost estimates at completion of the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs are as follows:
   1. (1) MEF IAS:
      1. (a) RDT&E: $4.61M (FY96 $) -- Does not include prior year R&D expenditures of $10.185M, which are considered sunk costs.
      2. (b) PMC: $18.988M (FY96 $) -- Does not include prior years obligated funding of $3.095M to procure two LRIP systems; this is considered a sunk cost. There is a funding shortfall of approximately $3.2M
   2. (2) TCAC PIP:
      1. (a) RDT&E: $6.132M (FY96 $) -- Funding was provided by the National Security Agency (NSA) through the Defense Crytologic Program (DCP). Does not include $12.433M prior year NSA DCP obligated funding, which is considered sunk costs.
      2. (b) PMC: $9.061M (FY96 $) -- There is an excess of approximately $1.6M when compared to the President's FY97 budget figures.
4. d. Schedule. Annex A to the Integrated Program Summary (IPS) depicts the development, production and deployment schedule and is summarized as follows:

1. e. MEF IAS Achieved Performance. The MEF IAS consists of a mobile, shelterized, system that will support the MEF command element. Comprised primarily of commercial off-the-shelf and Government off-the-shelf, nondevelopmental item components, the MEF IAS consists of two high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (heavy variant), each with a shelter installed. System equipment will include Marine Common Hardware Suite computer workstations, peripherals, and communications interface equipment. The MEF IAS will use MAGTF C4I Baseline software developed to be compliant with the Joint Staff's Global Command and Control System Common Operating Environment. The AN/MYQ-7 will be managed and supported as a normal density item.
   1. (1) Based on the IOT&E conducted in January-March 1996, MCOTEA concluded that the MEF IAS was marginally operationally effective, satisfying four of its six operational effectiveness issues. The Independent Evaluation Report (IER) noted that:
      1. At the time of the MEF IAS IOT&E, no security classification guide, security certification and accreditation plan, or program protection plan was available for the system. Other significant deficiencies noted during the IOT&E included: poor resolution of printed products, no color printing capability, and an inability to display unit locations and other track information in an acceptable manner. In addition, the FMF operators were not satisfied with the ability of MEF IAS to electronically process and disseminate imagery, and the system did not demonstrate an ability to compress imagery.
      2. The MEF IAS system was found not operationally suitable, satisfying nine of fourteen issues relating to operational suitability. The IER noted:
      3. The system did not meet issues relating to Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability, the adequacy of IOT&E training, the proposed logistics support concept, and safety of the system to operate in all environments. In particular, the system demonstrated a significant deficiency in its Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure (MTBOMF). During the IOT&E, the MEF IAS achieved only a 43 hour MTBOMF vice the 300 required. (This figure is consistent with the 50 hour MTBOMF demonstrated during DT.) Additionally, the training provided prior to the IOT&E was not adequate for a system with the complexity of the MEF IAS. We also found weakness in the proposed logistics support concept because special tools and resources were required. The safety of the system was also cause for concern when the provided SICP tent began leaking during a rainstorm. Because of the many wires, computers, and electrical connections, it is very dangerous when these devices are exposed to water.
   2. (2) The OT results and IER recommendations have been an issue between the program office and MCOTEA for the last six months. There have been numerous meetings to try to resolve the differences of opinion between the program office and MCOTEA concerning the OT results.
   3. (3) Our assessment is as follows:
      1. (a) Regarding the operational effectiveness issues, the PM has developed various options and workarounds to correct the noted deficiencies.
         1. - Security documents that address the security classification guide, security certification and accreditation plan, and program protection plan were received in August.
         2. - Unit symbols that were not usable and other track information that was not displayed in an acceptable manner will be corrected in a future release of the MAGTF Software Baseline (MSBL) expected in 3rd Qtr FY97.
         3. - Software contains a compression capability that has been demonstrated at the MCTSSA Battle Lab.
         4. - The PM is setting up a "printer shoot off" in FY97 to address and evaluate both the resolution of printed products issue and utility for a color printer capability.
         5. While these solutions appear to be viable, there has been no independent validation that these solutions will be operationally effective to date.
      2. (b) Operational Suitability Issues.
         1. - The system had a Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure (MTBOMF) of 43 hours, because of 4 OMFs (3 software and 1 hardware).
         2. - The hardware OMF was the result of the tent (GFE) leaking; the tent will be replaced with an one that has an improved configuration and that is being used with other systems.
         3. - The three software OMFs included:
         4. 1) An improper system shutdown. The PM's solution was to emphasize training and to incorporated written procedures to prevent reoccurrence.
         5. 2) A print problem, related to software. The PM's solution to the problem was to have a print driver installed. MCTSSA verified proper operation.
         6. 3) A large query by the operator, an 8700 record sort, caused the workstation to lock up. Training of operators was changed to emphasize impact of premature sort cancellations.
         7. While the MEF IAS did have problems during OT, our assessment of the operational suitability issues is that the hardware OMF and two of the software OMFs (the print problem and query problem) are not "show stoppers" and would classify the system as being "marginally operationally suitable." Also, from a purely statistical perspective, the test hours accumulated during the IOT&E (171.5 hours) were so low that even had there been zero failures, there is a 56% chance of accepting a bad system and a 29% chance of rejecting a good system.
      3. (c) Although there are still problems within the system, the FMF feels that MEF IAS provides them a greater organic tactical all-source intelligence fusion and imagery dissemination capability than what they have now.
2. f. TCAC PIP Achieved Performance. The TCAC PIP underwent a Battle Lab Assessment (BLA) conducted by MCTSSA and observed by MCOTEA. MCTSSA's assessment of TCAC PIP indicates that it is operationally effective and marginally operationally suitable. MCOTEA's observations and review of the BLA data indicate that TCAC PIP is not operationally effective and not operationally suitable. Concerns raised include:
   1. - Safety issues involving system weight, cabling, and uninterruptible power supply.
   2. - Interoperability concerns with other systems. Full interoperability was demonstrated with TCAC Remote Area Work Station (RAWS), CTT, and PACLESS. Partial interoperability was demonstrated with TPCS, MEF IAS, and AN/MSC-63A. TCAC PIP was not tested with MEWSS PIP and TERPES.
   3. - Various hardware recommendations, to include replacing the tent, routers, servers, printers, ECUs, and generators.
   4. Although the TCAC PIP has not undergone an IOT&E, the prototype has been in the fleet for several years. Even with the concerns noted in the BLA, the FMF has expressed a desire to have the system fielded and is satisfied with the initial capability demonstrated at the BLA.
3. g. Trade-offs. The IPS did not identify major cost, schedule and performance tradeoffs made during efforts to date. No major tradeoffs exist which would alter this acquisition from the requirements set forth in the respective ORDs. The principle cost drivers of these programs are the procurement of hardware and both software development and maintenance.
4. h. Funding. Documentation reviewed in preparation for the MS III identified a deficiency in PMC for MEF IAS and an excess of PMC in TCAC PIP. There was no post procurement O&M funding for the TCAC PIP; it did not make the POM 98 cut.

2. Threat Highlights. (For an IT program this paragraph should address whether the system will be used in garrison or in a deployed environment.)

1. a. Threat Environment. Threats to both the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP include direct and indirect fire weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and direct action by unconventional units. Threats also exist from non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse weapons and radio frequency (RF) weapons designed to produce physical damage to internal electronic components. The worldwide EW threat to TCAC PIP remote operations using a radio link is documented in various Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) technical publications and regional EW capabilities studies. General threats to the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) are outlined in the Marine Corps Master Plan (MCMP) 1994-2004 and Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA) letter 3880 MCIA12, dated 4 November 1993. Various DIA publications, listed in the IAS ORD, also apply.
2. b. Key Judgments Obtained from the System Threat Assessment Report (STAR). The Marine Tactical Command and Control System (MTCCS) (1992-2010) STAR of 16 December 1992 (Secret), produced by MCIA, contains the key intelligence judgments that apply to the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP. The STAR also contains analysis of the counterintelligence threat. Intercept and jamming of reporting frequencies should be anticipated.

3. Existing System Shortfalls

1. a. MEF IAS. There is no currently existing system in the FMF that allows for semi-automated receipt, processing, and dissemination of all-source intelligence. Of note, the volume of intelligence data at the tactical, theater, and national levels has increased dramatically in recent years. Intelligence staffs without a semi-automated capability to rapidly receive, process, and disseminate all-source intelligence are unable to effectively accomplish their mission. The Marine Corps' intelligence capabilities have not kept pace with these developments. Currently fielded technology does not allow MAGTF intelligence staffs to provide timely, fused all-source intelligence for the commander.
2. b. TCAC
   1. (1) General. The TCAC system currently fielded in the Radio Battalions has many shortfalls. It includes outdated data processing hardware with inadequate processing capability and increasing repair problems. There is no capability to receive direct data input from Radio Battalion collection systems. The TCAC size and weight does not promote either rapid or effective employment. The software originally fielded with the TCAC has no SIGINT analytical tools. Finally, there is no map graphic display. The TCAC PIP will address all of the above shortfalls by providing an integrated mobile sheltered system of state-of-the-art hardware and software.
   2. (2) Interoperability. Current TCAC capabilities do not meet the demanding requirements of the Operations Control and Analysis Center (OCAC) for automated information processing. As more automated and semi-automated SIGINT systems are fielded, such as Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System (MEWSS), Joint Tactical Terminal (JTT), Team Portable Communications Intelligence System (TPCS), it will be increasingly more difficult for the current TCAC to perform its mission. The TCAC PIP will dramatically increase the joint and service interoperability capabilities of the OCAC and other Radio Battalion detachments.

4. Alternatives Assessed

1. a. MEF IAS. A Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) was not conducted for the MEF IAS. In lieu of a formal analysis, the MEF IAS project office investigated the cost, availability, and functionality of similar systems to determine the "best buy" to meet the ORD directives for a mobile sheltered system. Based on the results of the project office effort, it was concluded that no existing system was suitable. It was decided that the MEF IAS requirement could be best satisfied by designing a nondevelopmental system of COTS, GOTS, and in-service equipment integrated into a sheltered vehicle and utilizing Government developed software. This approach would reduce research and development costs normally associated with long-term, full-scale development. Also, it would reduce risks and uncertainties normally associated with developmental systems and facilitate the integration of state-of-the-art commercial technology. Moreover, it was thought that it would reduce integration, testing, and fielding time by taking advantage of previously developed, supported, and fielded systems.
2. b. TCAC PIP. A COEA for the TCAC PIP was completed in February 1993. The study recommended that the existing TCAC system be upgraded by developing and fielding a system similar to the TCAC PIP alternative. Additionally, it suggested that strong consideration be given to consolidating the TCAC PIP and MEF IAS programs. The TCAC PIP COEA considered a variety of options. No models were used for the evaluation of effectiveness for each alternative. Based on the COEA analysis, it was recommended that the current TCAC system should be upgraded by developing and fielding a system similar to the TCAC PIP alternative. The project office determined that the requirement could be best satisfied by designing a nondevelopmental system of COTS, GOTS, and in-service equipment integrated into a shelterized vehicle and utilizing Government developed software. This approach reduced research and development costs normally associated with long term, full scale development. Moreover, by joining with the MEF IAS effort, it was thought that integration, testing, and fielding time would be reduced.

5. Acquisition Strategy. The following points regarding the acquisition strategy are germane:

1. a. The MEF IAS and TCAC PIP are developed in accordance with the evolutionary acquisition strategy and include the maximum the use of GOTS software, COTS items, Nondevelopmental Items (NDI) and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).
2. b. Streamlining. Program streamlining is accomplished by taking advantage of work already completed for earlier systems. The design for the system achieves the greatest possible commonalty with the MEF IAS. The majority of the TCAC PIP hardware is identical to that of the MEF IAS. Whenever possible, MCHS equipment is utilized. Intelligence software for the MEF IAS is embedded in the latest release of MAGTF C4I and is under continual development. TCAC PIP software is also under continual development and is scheduled to fully migrate to the MAGTF C4I Software Baseline, as the SIGINT segment, within two years.
3. c. Due to the nature of the acquisition, the LRIPs are the result of a non-competitive contract. The MEF IAS Project Office coordinated with the Director, Contracts Division for competitive procurement of the remaining seven systems. Three Government laboratories submitted proposals and the proposal of NAWCWPNS was chosen. All of the LRIP hardware components, software components, and integration efforts are products of existing Government contracts. A fixed price contract will be awarded to NAWCWPNS for the production of the remaining systems.

6. Risk Assessment. The MCPDM principals and the staff concur with the Program Manager's risk assessment shown in Annex D to the IPS except as note below:

1. a. Technical (Software). The Program Manager assesses the technical software risk for both MEF IAS and TCAC PIP as moderate. MEF IAS software functionality is tied to the development of MAGTF C4I Software Baseline. The core software of MAGTF C4I is the U.S. Navy's JMCIS. In addition to the basic JMCIS software, the MEF IAS relies heavily on the U.S. Navy's Naval Intelligence Processing System (NIPS), also included in MAGTF C4I software releases. The Marine Corps does not control either JMCIS or NIPS software development. JMCIS and NIPS upgrades, migration, and interoperability strategies, based on U.S. Navy requirements, have the potential for negative impact on the MEF IAS. Also, TCAC PIP legacy software has not been formally tested to measure operational effectiveness or suitability. Some of the BLA draft test results are inconclusive. In FY97, development is scheduled to begin on the new SIGINT segment of the MAGTF C4I Software Baseline. We assess the risk as moderate to high.
2. b. Cost. Costs for the instant MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs are well understood. Much of the material is easily priced, and the labor costs can be accurately estimated. There is little risk, therefore, that the cost of the instant programs will exceed the proposed baseline costs. Costs for the projected, extended program have not been accurately estimated to date, and should be determined before additional "evolutionary" development is undertaken. The PM has assessed the cost for MEF IAS as moderate because of funding shortfalls which could lead to program delay, stretch outs, and attendant cost growth. We would add that because of the performance uncertainty with the TCAC PIP (and to some extent the MEF IAS), there is additional likelihood that schedule delays could be incurred. For this reason we concur with the overall assessment of moderate.
3. c. Schedule. The MEF IAS schedule has a low to moderate risk as assessed by the PM. The TCAC PIP schedule is assessed as moderate to high. Of particular note is the amount of time required to procure components, produce the systems, conduct a Battlelab and operational test, correct potential operational mission failures, achieve a fielding decision, and then field the systems to the FMF. Additionally, key test events and fielding decisions for TCAC PIP are dependent upon the MAGTF C4I Software Baseline Version 1.2 development schedule of MCTSSA. Any slip in the software development schedule will have a direct adverse impact on testing and subsequent fielding. We concur with the PM's assessment for both programs.
4. d. Training
   1. (1) The PM considers the risk to be moderate to high for MEF IAS. Both MAGTF C4I operation and system administration are areas of official concern. The ability of MEF IAS users to sustain system administration skills is in doubt. Potential training requirements flowing from future upgrades of MAGTF C4I software also cause concern. We concur.
   2. (2) The PM considers the training risk for TCAC PIP as moderate. Training of an adequate number of system administrators is an area of concern. No firm plan of action is in place to address the issue. Over the long term, it is questionable whether or not the operating forces can maintain the necessary TCAC PIP system administration skills. Also, no source of training is firmly identified for TCAC PIP operators to learn basic unit level maintenance, setup and teardown. We assess the risk as moderate to high.

7. Affordability Assessment. An affordability assessment was conducted for total Marine Corps RDT&E and PMC for the time period FY96 through FY01. Attachment 1 pertains. The assessment found that for MEF IAS, there was a deficiency of about $3.2M in PMC and about $1M in O&M. For TCAC PIP, there was an excess of about $1.6M in PMC and an O&M deficiency of about $5.1M over the time period.

8. Logistics Supportability

1. a. MEF IAS. A Logistics Assessment Review (LAR) was conducted for the MEF IAS in September 1996. The Director, Program Support, signed a letter on 18 October 1996 stating the LAR to support a production decision for MEF IAS had been completed and the MEF IAS was logistically supportable. One finding was identified during the review concerning NBC contamination survivability. The program office developed a POA&M to address the issue.
2. b. TCAC PIP. A LAR was conducted in October 1996 for TCAC PIP. The Director, Program Support, signed a letter on 18 November 1996 stating that TCAC PIP was logistically supportable provided corrective action were completed for the three findings generated during the review. The three findings include the need to obtain transportability certification, determination of NBC contamination survivability and nuclear survivability, and expanding the ILS milestone chart to use as a tool in executing the logistics program. The program office developed acceptable POA&Ms to address these issues.

9. Milestone III Issues

1. a. Funding Shortfalls: As noted earlier, there are PMC deficiencies with the MEF IAS program and fairly significant O&M shortfalls which will have to be addressed before the systems can be fully procured and properly fielded.
2. b. Operational Test Results. Despite the program manager's best efforts to moderate the MCOTEA findings based on the MEF IAS IOT&E, the fact remains that the report is highly critical of the system's performance. In addition, a formal IOT&E has not been conducted on the TCAC PIP, although MCOTEA did participate in the design of the MCTSSA BLA, and did observe and report on that test. As noted earlier, the informal MCOTEA report on TCAC PIP was also quite critical.
3. c. Documentation. The MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs are proceeding to a MS III without a complete set of approved and signed documentation. The IPS, ASR, and APBA are being updated based on staffing comments and will be sent to MCCDC for signature.
4. d. MCPDM Staffing Comments. The MEF IAS and TCAC PIP documentation book was submitted to the following commands and organizations for their comments and statement of issues. A "concur" indicates that the organization concurs with the decisions requested for both programs and that there are no issues with respect to their functional expertise.
   1. (1) CG, MCCDC: Concur -- WDID comments on doing an assessment concerning of system administration and operator training before fielding. Reqts Div comments to clarify/correct information in IPS and APBA. T&E Div concur; no comments received.
   2. (2) DC/S MR&A: No comment received.
   3. (3) DC/S I&L: Concur -- Comments on configuration of MEF IAS for training and for the FMF.
   4. (4) DC/S PP&O: Concur -- Recommended correcting deficiencies prior to procurement.
   5. (5) DC/S AVN: No comment received.
   6. (6) DC/S C4I2: No comment received.
   7. (7) DC/S P&R: Concur -- Affordability Assessment provided.
   8. (8) Counsel for CMC: Concur -- No comment.
   9. (9) Director, Contracts: Concur -- No comment.
   10. (10) Director, C4I: Concur -- No comment.
   11. (11) Director, MCOTEA: Concur -- Comments received to correct/clarify documents.
   12. (12) Director, Program Support: Concur -- No comment.
   13. (13) Director, DFM: No comment received.
   14. (14) MCLB, Albany -- Concur -- comments provided to correct/clarify documentation.

10. Recommendations. We recommend that:

1. a. The MDA disapprove the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs for entry into phase three, production and deployment, unless there is reasonable assurance that the program will receive full funding in both the procurement and O&M(MC) accounts. That assurance should come in the form of an acceptable FY97 reprogramming plan, and strong assurance from HQMC(P&R) that adequate adjustments will be made during PR-99 and/or POM-00.
   1. Rationale: We believe it is not prudent to commit these systems to production in the absence of a clear means to ensure that they will be properly supported after fielding. The implications of providing the operating forces with poorly supported systems are clear based on recent experience with such systems as the Riverine Assault Craft.
2. b. If a funding scheme acceptable to the MDA can be developed, the MDA approve both the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP for production.
   1. Rationale: Although the results of testing to date tend to indicate that there are significant effectiveness and suitability issues with the two systems, our assessment is that there is a high probability that the deficiencies can be corrected in the production systems without the need for additional funding or schedule delay. In the case of MEF IAS, the necessary corrections are clearly low risk. The TCAC PIP deficiencies are not as easy to assess because of the lack of a detailed OT report; however, the problems noted also appear to be correctable during the production phase. In addition, the operating forces have been using the TCAC PIP S/W for some time, and report general satisfaction with its performance. The communications difficulties suffered by TCAC PIP are largely driven by the limitations of various communications paths (e.g. SINCGARS) rather than an inherent limitation in TCAC PIP H/W or S/W.
3. c. If the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP are approved for production, the MDA require that MCOTEA conducts an FOT&E on each system to verify that deficiencies noted during IOT&E/BLA have been corrected. Take steps to request additional funding to support this unprogrammed testing. Delay fielding of these systems until follow on test results show that performance is acceptable.
   1. Rationale: The FOT&E approach will provide the highest level of assurance that these important systems are not fielded with unresolved deficiencies.
4. d. The MDA require that the program manager present a detailed correction of deficiencies plan for both systems to the Executive Director within 45 days of the MS-III decision.
   1. Rationale: Sound business practice.
5. e. The MDA require the program manager to present production baselines for both systems for MDA approval within 30 days of the MS-III decision or return for an in progress review at that time.
   1. Rationale: Sound business practice.

Memorandum for the Program Manager, Command Information Systems

Subj:	Acquisition Decision Memorandum (MILESTONE III) for the Marine Expeditionary Force Intelligence Analysis System (MEF IAS) and the Technical Control and Analysis Center Product Improvement Program (TCAC PIP) Programs
Ref:	(a) DoDR 5000.2R

1. Based on the information presented at the milestone review on 6 December 1996, I am satisfied that the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs meet the criteria set forth in the reference for a Milestone III decision. Approval is hereby granted for both programs to enter into Phase III, Production.

2. Within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide me with a briefing on your detailed plan to correct all deficiencies identified during the IOT&E of the MEF IAS. Your plan should include a follow-on Battle Lab Assessment (BLA) during which corrections will be verified. A fielding decision will be made after I am briefed on the results of the BLA.

3. Within 45 days of the date of this memorandum, please provide me with a briefing on your plan to correct the identified TCAC PIP funding deficiencies. Include options if funding does not become available and what impact the projected funding deficiencies, if any, will have on the program.

4. Continue with your plans to conduct FOT&E on the TCAC PIP. It is understood that the existing TCAC software will be used unless the MAGTF C4I software has been approved for use prior to the TCAC test. Upon completion of the FOT&E, return to me for a fielding decision.

5. Within 30 days of the date of this memorandum, provide the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP milestone documentation for my signature.

6. By copy of this decision memorandum, the Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, is requested to conduct

Subj:

Acquisition Decision Memorandum (MILESTONE III) for the Marine Expeditionary Force Intelligence Analysis System (MEF IAS) and the Technical Control and Analysis Center Product Improvement Program (TCAC PIP) programs

a review of the system reliability and "time to zero" requirements for the MEF IAS. During the Milestone III MCPDM, it was noted that these two performance requirements appeared to be higher than could normally be achieved at a reasonable cost in a system of this complexity.

		M. J. WilliamsCommander
Copy to:ASN(RD&A)(EFP)HQMC (P&R)CG, MCCDC (C44)Dir, PAEDir, C4IDir, PSDFMDFMQDir, MCOTEA