Title: U.S. Marine Corps Acquisition Procedures Handbook; September 1999
(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
(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
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).
The purpose of the MCPDM is to determine:
- Where the program is versus where the program should be
(from a cost, schedule, and performance standpoint)
- Where the program is going and how the PM proposes to get
- What risks exist in the program and how the PM will mitigate
- 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.
- 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:
- Documentation is limited to that required to support the
purpose of the review and to that required by statute, regulation,
- The scope and formality of the documentation required to
support the review depends on the program's ACAT
- Typical milestone documents tailored for the specific milestone
and complexity of the program include:
- Mission Need Statement (MNS) (required at MS 0) or Operational
Requirements Document (ORD) (required at milestones I - III)
- Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) or Tailored Executive Analysis
(TEA) (required at MS I)
- Acquisition Strategy (AS) (required at MS I -- III)
- Acquisition Program Baseline Agreement (APBA) (required
at MS I -- III)
- Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) (required at MS I-III)
and Operational Test & Evaluation Report (required at MS III)
- Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E) Report (required
at MS II)
- Environmental, Safety & Health Evaluation (required
at MS I-III)
- System Threat Assessment (required at all MSs)
- Risk Assessment (required at MS I-III)
- Program Life Cycle Cost Estimate (PLCCE) (required at MS
I -- III)
- 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.
- 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 18.104.22.168 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
- 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) 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:
- Marine Corps Program Management Office (PMO)
- MARCORSYSCOM Program Support (PS)
- MARCORSYSCOM (PAE)
- MARCORSYSCOM Deputy for Financial Management (DFM)
- MARCORSYSCOM Contracts Directorate (CT)
- Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) Warfighting
Division/Integration Division (WDID) & Requirements Division
- Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA)
- ASN(RDA) Expeditionary Forces Program (EFP) (Office representative
- (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.
- (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).
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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
- 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) 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.
- (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
- (3) Planning Notice. The same as described
in paragraph 3a(2) except that the focus is at the ASN(RDA) level.
- (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.
- (5) Logistics Assessment. The same as described
in paragraph 3a(3).
- (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.
- (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).
- (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)
- (9) MCPDM. The same as described in paragraph
3a(6) except that the ASN(RDA) staff conducts the MCPDM.
- (10) ADM. The same as described in paragraph
3a(8) except that the ASN(RDA) staff prepares the final ADM after
|List of Functional Points of Contact
|I&L (LPM-1)OLAAV (APP)P&R (RPA/RPB)C4IM&RAPP&O
|* ASN(RDA) (ACATs I and II only)
|* Indicates Principals
From: maj douglas e mason@pae@marcorsyscom, on 7/11/97
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.
Maj D. E. Mason
Program Analysis and Evaluation Directorate
Marine Corps Systems Command
DSN 278-2427, ext 5027, COML (784)
Independent Program Assessment
AN/MYQ-7 Marine Expeditionary Force
Intelligence Analysis System (MEF IAS)
AN/MYQ-8 Technical Control and Analysis Center
Product Improvement Program (TCAC PIP)
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
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
Independent Program Assessment
AN/MYQ-7 Marine Expeditionary Force
Intelligence Analysis System (MEF IAS)
AN/MYQ-8 Technical Control and Analysis Center
Product Improvement Program (TCAC PIP)
NOTE: This document uses the term "Integrated Program
Summary" throughout. The term "Acquisition Strategy"
is currently used.
1. Program Execution Status
- 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.
- b. Subsequent Guidance, Decisions, Congressional Actions
- (1) On 12 October 1993, COMMARCORSYSCOM approved combining
the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP programs into a single program.
- (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) In March 1995, the two programs were separated during
a C4I directorate reorganization.
- (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
- (5) During July 1996, the two programs were combined again
following a C4I directorate reorganization.
- 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) MEF IAS:
- (a) RDT&E: $4.61M (FY96 $) -- Does not
include prior year R&D expenditures of $10.185M, which are
considered sunk costs.
- (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) TCAC PIP:
- (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.
- (b) PMC: $9.061M (FY96 $) -- There is an excess
of approximately $1.6M when compared to the President's FY97 budget
- d. Schedule. Annex A to the Integrated Program
Summary (IPS) depicts the development, production and deployment
schedule and is summarized as follows:
||2nd Qtr FY933rd Qtr FY952nd Qtr FY961st Qtr FY971st Qtr FY981st Qtr FY99
|DT&EBattle Lab AssessMS-IIIaFOT&EMS-IIIbIOCFOC
||3rd Qtr FY954th Qtr FY961st Qtr FY971st Qtr FY984th Qtr FY981st Qtr FY993rd Qtr FY99
- 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) 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:
- 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
- The MEF IAS system was found not operationally suitable,
satisfying nine of fourteen issues relating to operational suitability.
The IER noted:
- 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) 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
- (3) Our assessment is as follows:
- (a) Regarding the operational effectiveness issues, the PM
has developed various options and workarounds to correct the noted
- - Security documents that address the security classification
guide, security certification and accreditation plan, and program
protection plan were received in August.
- - 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.
- - Software contains a compression capability that has been
demonstrated at the MCTSSA Battle Lab.
- - 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.
- While these solutions appear to be viable, there has been
no independent validation that these solutions will be operationally
effective to date.
- (b) Operational Suitability Issues.
- - The system had a Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure
(MTBOMF) of 43 hours, because of 4 OMFs (3 software and 1 hardware).
- - 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.
- - The three software OMFs included:
- 1) An improper system shutdown. The PM's solution was to
emphasize training and to incorporated written procedures to prevent
- 2) A print problem, related to software. The PM's solution
to the problem was to have a print driver installed. MCTSSA verified
- 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.
- 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.
- (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.
- 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:
- - Safety issues involving system weight, cabling, and uninterruptible
- - 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
- - Various hardware recommendations, to include replacing the
tent, routers, servers, printers, ECUs, and generators.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- b. TCAC
- (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) 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
- 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.
- 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:
- 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).
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- d. Training
- (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) 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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) 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
- (2) DC/S MR&A: No comment received.
- (3) DC/S I&L: Concur -- Comments on configuration
of MEF IAS for training and for the FMF.
- (4) DC/S PP&O: Concur -- Recommended correcting
deficiencies prior to procurement.
- (5) DC/S AVN: No comment received.
- (6) DC/S C4I2: No comment received.
- (7) DC/S P&R: Concur -- Affordability
- (8) Counsel for CMC: Concur -- No comment.
- (9) Director, Contracts: Concur -- No comment.
- (10) Director, C4I: Concur -- No comment.
- (11) Director, MCOTEA: Concur -- Comments
received to correct/clarify documents.
- (12) Director, Program Support: Concur --
- (13) Director, DFM: No comment received.
- (14) MCLB, Albany -- Concur -- comments provided
to correct/clarify documentation.
10. Recommendations. We recommend that:
- 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.
- 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
- b. If a funding scheme acceptable to the MDA can be developed,
the MDA approve both the MEF IAS and TCAC PIP for production.
- 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.
- 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.
- Rationale: The FOT&E approach will provide the highest
level of assurance that these important systems are not fielded
with unresolved deficiencies.
- 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.
- Rationale: Sound business practice.
- 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
- 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
Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)
|* ASN(RDA)(EFP)* HQMC (P&R)* HQMC (C4I)* HQMC (PP&O)* HQMC (I&L)* HQMC (M&RA)* CG, MCCDC (C44, C39)* Dir, PAE* Dir, PS* DFM* CTQ* Dir, MCOTEA
||All ProgramsAll ProgramsC4I ProgramsGround Weapons ProgramsLogistics ProgramsManpower ProgramsAll ProgramsAll ProgramsAll ProgramsAll ProgramsAll ProgramsAll Programs