Major Systems Acquisition

Manual (MSAM) “Mission Execution Begins Here”

COMDTINST M5000.10G

01 December 2021

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Commandant US Coast Guard Stop 7816

United States Coast Guard 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE

Washington DC 20593-7816

Staff Symbol: Commandant (CG-924)

Phone: (202) 475-3150

Fax: (202) 475-3911

COMDTINST M5000.10G

01 DEC 2021

COMMANDANT INSTRUCTION M5000.10G

Subj: MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITION MANUAL (MSAM)

Ref: (a) Chapter 11, Title 14, U.S. Code (Acquisitions)

(b) Department of Homeland Security Acquisition Management Directive, Revision

3.1, 102-01

(c) DHS Instruction 102-01-001, Revision 1.3 Acquisition Management Instruction,

Incorporating Change 3, 01/21/21

(d) Coast Guard Acquisition Management Roles and Responsibilities, COMDTINST

5000.12 (series).

(e) DHS Instruction 026-06-001 Revision #01, Test and Evaluation

(f) Coast Guard Operational Requirements Generation Manual, COMDTINST

M5000.4 (series)

(g) Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS) Engineering Technical

Authority (ETA) Policy, COMDTINST 5402.4 (series)

(h) The Coast Guard Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Manual, COMDTINST

M4105.14 (series)

(i) DHS Instruction Manual for the Operation of the Joint Requirements Integration

and Management System (JRIMS), 107-01-001-01 Revision #01

(j) U.S. Coast Guard Cybersecurity Manual, COMDTINST M5500.13 (series)

(k) Level 3 Non-Major Acquisition Program (NMAP) Manual, COMDTINST

M5000.11 (series)

(l) Coast Guard Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process,

COMDTINST 7100.1 (series)

(m)Coast Guard Configuration Management Policy, COMDTINST 4130.6 (series)

(n) Acquisition Executive Reviews, Commandant (CG-9) Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) #38

(o) Independent Red Team Review of Request for Proposals, Commandant (CG-9),

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

DISTRIBUTION - SDL No. 170

A

B

D

E

F

G

H

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X

X X X

NON-STANDARD DISTRIBUTION:

C

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(p) Acquisition Directorate (CG-9) Standard Operation Procedure 07, Program Risk

Management and Mishap Risk Management

(q) Integrated Government Schedule, Commandant (CG-9) Standard Operating

Procedure (SOP) #6

(r) U.S. Coast Guard Enterprise Architecture (EA) Policy, COMDTINST 5230.68

(series)

(s) U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series)

(t) DHS Guidebook Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) Guidebook, 102-01-103-

01

(u) DHS Instruction 102-01-012, Revision 00, Cybersecurity through the Acquisition

Life Cycle Framework

1. PURPOSE. To revise acquisition policies and procedures and provide updated guidance

for the implementation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Acquisition

Management and Review Process in accordance with Reference (b).

2. ACTION. All Coast Guard unit commanders, commanding officers, officers-in-charge,

deputy/assistant commandants, and chiefs of headquarters staff elements must comply with

the provisions of this Manual. Internet release authorized.

3. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED. The Major Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM),

COMDTINST M5000.10F is cancelled.

4. DISCUSSION. This Manual defines the policy and process for major systems acquisition

programs. Detailed procedures are provided for applying a uniform and disciplined

approach to acquisition planning and program management from mission analysis and

requirements generation through design, development, production, and deployment.

5. DISCLAIMER. This guidance is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it

itself a rule. It is intended to provide operational guidance for Coast Guard personnel and

is not intended to nor does it impose legally-binding requirements on any party outside the

Coast Guard.

6. MAJOR CHANGES. The purpose of this MSAM update is to provide the Program

Manager a more user friendly acquisition program management execution tool and more

clearly present USCG acquisition policy. Included in this revision are the following

significant changes:

a. Improved organizational cohesiveness of the MSAM by aligning all chapters to the

Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF) execution defined in Chapter 2;

b. Added definitions for Governance and Oversight to add clarity to organizational

responsibilities;

c. Adds processes and process depictions for routine acquisition activities (e.g.,

Systems Engineering Review Completion letter approval, Concurrent Clearance

signature routing, Preferred Solution Recommendation decision process, PPBE/ALF

alignment);

2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Incorporates stronger alignment with contracting activities and adds the Draft RFP

and Solicitation (RFP) as key functional alignment points for ALF execution

planning;

e. Adds a glossary for easy reference;

f. Chapter 2 was reorganized to provide the PM and stakeholders insight into alignment

of activities/functions to key points between ADEs (e.g., Preferred Solution

Determination, Solicitation (RFP) release) to help Program Managers (PMs) plan

program execution with targeted activities, objectives and outcomes;

(1) Improves alignment of acquisition program functions and interfaces with

external processes (e.g., Enterprise Architecture, Environmental, DCMS ETA

policy memo, Threat Analysis, Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) execution,

contracting, etc…);

(2) Provides a single table to identify all required IPT functions which must be

accounted for by the PM in their IPT organization (e.g., Configuration

Management IPT, Risk Management IPT, Integrated Logistics Support

Management Team; T&E Working IPT, and Program-Cybersecurity

Acquisition Risk Management); and,

(3) More clearly defines the post Materiel Decision (Pre-ADE-1) APEO and

Sponsor Activities; Adds a post Materiel Decision APEO/Sponsor

Representative brief to “officially” kickoff the Need Phase.

g. Chapter 3 was rewritten to demonstrate alignment to DHS Systems Engineering (SE)

policies and the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF) and process integration to

the ALF and adds a SE planning process section and defines processes for SE Life

Cycle (SELC) tailoring and SELC Technical Review Completion Letter (TRCL)

review/approval process;

h. Chapter 4 was updated to reflect the Commandant (CG-8) reorganization which adds

Commandant (CG-PAE) and assigns this new organization responsibility for mission

analysis required by Chapter 11, Title 14, U.S. Code (Acquisitions); added a

description aligning operational requirements to solicitation system specification and

statement of work; and adds a description of the DHS Post Implementation Review

(PIR) guidance and operational analysis relationship;

i. Chapter 5 was changed to provide expanded descriptions of artifacts and processes

identified in Chapters 2 and 3 (e.g., added a Preferred Solution Recommendation

Process, Integrated Government Schedule (IGS), APB breach processes, description

of the Component - Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM)

directed by the DHS Instruction 102-01-012, Revision 00, Cybersecurity through the

ALF, etc..);

j. Chapter 6 was rewritten to depict the critical functional relationships among the

Executive Decision Memorandum (EDM), Program, Planning, Budgeting and

Execution (PPBE) process, the acquisition (Major System Acquisition Manual

(MSAM)) processes and operational requirement development process;

3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

k. Chapter 7 was rewritten to provide the PM and stakeholders direction/guidance on

planning and execution of the USCG and DHS Acquisition Review Process (ARP)

(e.g., long and short term ADE preparation, defines USCG major acquisition

governance forums (EOC, DCO/DCMS, CG ARB) and DHS review forums (e.g.,

ART and DHS-ARB); and,

l. Chapter 8 now contains all information necessary to coordinate the development,

review and approval of acquisition documents based on proven practices of

successful PMs (e.g., concurrent clearance process diagram and definitions, single

document table (vice four in previous MSAMs), adds clarity to minor document

change process (including Commandant (CG-771) approval of operational

documents).

7. ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT AND IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS.

a. Commandant (CG-47) reviewed the development of this commandant instruction

manual, and the general policies contained within it, and determined that this policy

falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) categorical exclusion A3.

No further environmental analysis is necessary in accordance with the U.S. Coast

Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series).

b. This commandant instruction manual must not result in any substantial change to

existing environmental conditions or violation of any applicable federal, state, or

local laws relating to the protection of the environment. It is the responsibility of the

action proponent to evaluate all future specific actions resulting from this policy for

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), other applicable

environmental mandates, and the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy,

COMDTINST 5090.1(series)

8. DISTRIBUTION. No paper distribution will be made of this Manual. An electronic

version will be located on the following Commandant (CG-612) web sites. Internet:

http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/directives/, and CG portal:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/library/directives/SitePages/Home.aspx.

9. RECORDS MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS. Records created as a result of this

instruction, regardless of format or media, must be maintained and dispositioned in

accordance with the records retention schedules located on the USCG Records Resource

Center SharePoint site: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg61/CG611/SitePages/Home.aspx.

10. FORMS/REPORTS. The forms Referenced in this Manual are available in USCG

Electronic Forms on the Standard Workstation or on the Internet:

http://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/Assistant-Commandant-for C4IT-CG-6/The-

Office-of-Information-Management-CG-61/Forms-Management/forms/; CG portal at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/library/forms/SitePages/Home.aspx.

11. SECTION 508. This manual was created to adhere to Accessibility guidelines and

standards as promulgated by the U.S. Access Board. If changes are needed, please

communicate with the Coast Guard Section 508 Program Management Office at

Section.508@uscg.mil.

4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

12. REQUEST FOR CHANGES. Requests for exceptions to this Manual must be submitted

through the Coast Guard Acquisition Review Board Executive Secretary, Commandant

(CG-924), HQS-SMB-CG-9-Acquisition-Executive-Secretary@uscg.mil. Requests must

contain sufficient detail to clearly explain the basis of the request, policies to be waived,

and the recommended alternative action. Waivers of policy must be approved by

Commandant (CG-9). This Manual is under continual review and must be updated as

necessary. Recommendations for improvement or corrections to this Manual must be

submitted directly to Commandant (CG-924).

/DOUGLAS. M. SCHOFIELD/

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard

Assistant Commandant for Acquisition

5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank.

6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

RECORD OF CHANGES

CHANGE NUMBER DATE OF CHANGE DATE ENTERD ENTERED BY

7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank.

8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1

A. MANUAL ORGANIZATION............................................................................. 1-1

B. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE .......................................... 1-2

C. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION TEAM .......................................................... 1-1

D. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION LEADERSHIP TEAM ................................. 1-1

E. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION ............ 1-2

F. PROGRAM MANAGER (PM) AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ........ 1-2

G. ASSISTANT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (APEO) AUTHORITY AND

RESPONSIBILITY.............................................................................................. 1-1

H. ASSET PROJECT OFFICE (APO) ..................................................................... 1-1

I. MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE (MASI) ................ 1-2

J. PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO) ...................................................... 1-2

K. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR ACQUISITION

(COMMANDANT CG-9D) ................................................................................ 1-2

L. COAST GUARD CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER (CG-CAO) ..................... 1-2

M. EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (EOC) ................................................. 1-1

N. COMPONENT ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE (CAE) ....................................... 1-1

O. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD (CG ARB) .................... 1-2

P. SPONSOR AND SPONSOR’S REPRESENTATIVE ........................................ 1-2

Q. ENGINEERING TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES (ETA) .................................... 1-2

R. TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES (TA) (NON-ENGINEERING) SPECIFICALLY

DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFERENCE (A)......................... 1-1

S. HEAD OF CONTRACTING ACTIVITY (HCA) ............................................... 1-1

T. CONTRACTING OFFICER AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ............ 1-2

U. COMMANDANT (CG-924) OFFICE OF ACQUISITION SUPPORT AND

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING POLICY AND PROCESSES ............................... 1-2

V. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

(COMMANDANT (CG-926)) ............................................................................. 1-1

CHAPTER 2. SYSTEMS ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT ........................................... 2-1

A. SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS .............................................................. 2-1

B. CAPABILITY GAP IDENTIFICATION PHASE .............................................. 2-1

C. NEED PHASE ..................................................................................................... 2-1

1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. ANALYZE/SELECT PHASE ............................................................................. 2-1

E. OBTAIN PHASE ................................................................................................. 2-1

F. PREPARATION FOR ADE-2B .......................................................................... 2-1

G. PREPARATION FOR ADE-2C .......................................................................... 2-1

H. PREPARATION FOR ADE-3 ............................................................................. 2-1

I. PRODUCE/DEPLOY AND SUPPORT PHASE (P/D/S) ................................... 2-1

J. PREPARATION FOR ADE-4 ............................................................................. 2-1

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ........................................................................ 3-1

A. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION ................................................ 3-1

B. SELC NEEDS ANALYSIS STAGE ................................................................... 3-2

C. SELC SOLUTION ANALYSIS AND PLANNING STAGES. .......................... 3-2

D. SELC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION AND PRELIMINARY

DESIGN STAGES ............................................................................................... 3-2

E. SELC DEFINITIZED DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND TEST

& EVALUATION STAGES ............................................................................... 3-2

F. SELC – IMPLEMENTATION STAGE .............................................................. 3-2

G. SELC IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

STAGES .............................................................................................................. 3-2

CHAPTER 4. REQUIREMENTS LIFE CYCLE ............................................................... 4-1

A. OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4-1

B. MISSION ANALYSIS (MA) .............................................................................. 4-1

C. COAST GUARD OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT ...... 4-2

D. SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 4-2

E. POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (PIR) AND OPERATIONAL

ANALYSIS (OA) ................................................................................................ 4-2

CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EXPANDED DISCUSSIONS. ................. 5-1

A. RISK MANAGEMENT....................................................................................... 5-1

B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (AA) ................................................................. 5-1

C. PREFERRED SOLUTION RECOMMENDATION PROCESS ........................ 5-2

D. INTEGRATED GOVERNMENT SCHEDULE (IGS) ....................................... 5-1

E. ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE (APB) ............................................... 5-2

2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

F. SPECIFICATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF WORK (SOW) DEVELOPMENT

.............................................................................................................................. 5-1

G. SOLICITATION AND SOURCE SELECTION PLANNING, PROGRAM

INPUT .................................................................................................................. 5-1

H. LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 5-2

I. MILESTONE COMPLETION MEMORANDUM ............................................. 5-1

J. PROGRAM TRANSITION PLAN (PTP) ........................................................... 5-1

K. CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP) ................................................ 5-1

L. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) ..................................................... 5-1

M. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 5-2

N. PROGRAM PROTECTION AND CYBERSECURITY .................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6. PLANNING PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EXECUTION

PROCESS / ACQUISITION LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK ALIGNMENT .................... 6-1

A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 6-1

B. PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EXECUTION (PPBE) 6-1

C. PPBE / MSAM MATERIEL DECISION PROCESS ALIGNMENT ................. 6-2

CHAPTER 7. ACQUISITION REVIEW PROCESS (ARP) ............................................. 7-1

A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 7-1

B. USCG /DHS ARP ................................................................................................ 7-1

C. USCG ARP .......................................................................................................... 7-1

D. ARP REVIEW PLANNING ................................................................................ 7-2

E. ANNUAL CAE PROGRAM REVIEW .............................................................. 7-3

F. ARP REVIEW FORUMS .................................................................................... 7-3

CHAPTER 8. ACQUISITION DOCUMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS8-1

A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8-1

B. DOCUMENT CONCURRENT CLEARANCE AND APPROVAL PROCESS 8-2

C. DOCUMENT VERIFICATION OF CURRENCY AND REVISIONS ............. 8-1

D. DOCUMENT TABLE ......................................................................................... 8-2

ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 1

GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................ 1

3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Coast Guard Acquisition Review Forums ................................................................ 1-2

Figure 2-1: Management Interfaces ............................................................................................. 2-1

Figure 2-2: Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework ..................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-3: Capability Gap Identification Cycle ......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-4: Management Interfaces ............................................................................................. 2-1

Figure 2-5: ALF Document Alignment ....................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-6: Need Phase................................................................................................................ 2-1

Figure 2-7: Management Interfaces ............................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-8: ALF Document Alignment – Need Phase ................................................................ 2-1

Figure 2-9: Analyze/Select Phase ................................................................................................ 2-1

Figure 2-10: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-11: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process .................................... 2-2

Figure 2-12: ALF Document Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-13: Obtain Phase ........................................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-14: Obtain Phase (ADE-2A-ADE-2B).......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-15: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-16: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process .................................... 2-2

Figure 2-17: ALF Document Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-18: Obtain Phase (ADE-2B-ADE-2C) .......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-19: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-20: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process .................................... 2-1

Figure 2-21: ALF Document Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-22: Obtain Phase ........................................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-23: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-24: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process .................................... 2-2

Figure 2-25: ALF Document Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-26: Produce/Deploy and Support Phase (P/D/S)........................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-27: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2-28: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process .................................... 2-1

Figure 2-29: ADE-4 (Transition to Sustainment / Acquisition Program Closure) ...................... 2-1

Figure 2-30: Management Interfaces ........................................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-31: Capability Gap Identification Cycle ....................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-32: ALF Document Alignment ..................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 3-1: DHS SELC................................................................................................................ 3-1

Figure 3-2: CG SELC .................................................................................................................. 3-2

Figure 3-3: SELC Stage Review Table........................................................................................ 3-2

Figure 3-4: SELC Technical Review Completion Letter Process ............................................... 3-1

Figure 3-5: SELC Technical Reviews Approval Authorities ...................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-6: Need Analysis Stage ................................................................................................. 3-2

Figure 3-7: Solution Analysis and Planning Stages..................................................................... 3-2

Figure 3-8: Systems Requirements Definition and Preliminary Design Stages .......................... 3-2

Figure 3-9: Definitized Design and Development, Integration and Test Stages ......................... 3-2

Figure 3-10: Implementation Stage ............................................................................................. 3-2

Figure 3-11: Produce/Deploy and Support Phase ADE-3 to ADE-4........................................... 3-2

Figure 5-1: Preferred Solution Recommendation Process........................................................... 5-2

4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 5-2: APB Breach Reporting Process ................................................................................ 5-9

Figure 5-3: Program Protection/Cybersecurity the Broader Picture............................................ 5-2

Figure 6-1: PPBE / ALF Alignment ............................................................................................ 6-2

Figure 7-1: USCG and DHS Reviews Supporting the ARP ........................................................ 7-1

Figure 7-2: USCG ARP Annual and Delegated Program Reviews............................................. 7-1

Figure 8-1: Acquisition Document Life cycle ............................................................................. 8-1

Figure 8-2: Concurrent Clearance Review / Signature Clearance Process.................................. 8-2

Figure 8-3: DHS Approved Document Concurrent Clearance Matrix ....................................... 8-2

Figure 8-4: CG Approved Document Concurrent Clearance Matrix........................................... 8-3

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: PM Certification Levels ............................................................................................. 1-1

Table 2-1: System Acquisition Level Determination (Capital Assets, Services) ........................ 2-1

Table 2-2: Coast Guard Acquisition Decision Authorities .......................................................... 2-2

Table 2-3: Capability Gap Identification Phase Documentation ................................................. 2-2

Table 2-4: ADE-1 Documentation............................................................................................... 2-2

Table 2-5: Required Program IPT Functions............................................................................... 2-1

Table 3-1: DHS Defined SELC Technical Baselines .................................................................. 3-2

Table 5-1: Program Management Artifacts and Activities .......................................................... 5-1

Table 5-3: APB Breaches............................................................................................................. 5-1

Table 5-4: Comparison of Breach Reporting Conditions ............................................................ 5-1

Table 7-1: EOC Membership....................................................................................................... 7-1

Table 7-2: CG ARB Core Members ............................................................................................ 7-1

Table 8-1: Version Formats ......................................................................................................... 8-1

Table 8-2: Date Formats .............................................................................................................. 8-1

Table 8-3: Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation...................................................................... 8-2

5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank.

6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

A. MANUAL ORGANIZATION

This Manual documents the process and identifies the procedures for complying with

References (a), (b), (c) and (d). The policies governing major systems acquisition processes

are outlined in Chapters 1 through 8 of this Manual.

The MSAM in conjunction with Reference (d) defines the CG-ALF, but the processes for

different aspects of the CG-ALF are now defined by the functional process owners and

covered under separate commandant instructions.

1. Chapter 1: Introduction. This introductory chapter lays out the organization of this Manual

and provides an overview of the Coast Guard Acquisition Directorate, Commandant (CG-

9). This chapter also spells out the roles and responsibilities of key acquisition personnel

and organizations. It outlines the acquisition workforce training and certification

requirements.

2. Chapter 2: Major Systems Acquisition Management. This chapter discusses the

governance process for USCG major systems acquisitions. It defines Major System

Acquisitions and describes the Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF),

major acquisition decision events (ADEs), major acquisition phases, required acquisition

documentation, and lists the major functional activities required during each phase.

3. Chapter 3: Systems Engineering Life Cycle. This chapter highlights the process and

requirements of the Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) framework to efficiently and

effectively develop and deliver new capabilities to operational users. The SELC framework

supports the ALF and is intended to provide a common structure and language for a series

of system engineering tasks and reviews for acquisition programs.

4. Chapter 4: Requirements Life Cycle. This chapter identifies the activities that are

conducted to assess mission areas, identify mission needs and capability gaps prior to their

potential designation as a major system acquisition program. It also addresses the

requirements definition process conducted once a program has been so designated.

5. Chapter 5: Program Management Expanded Discussions. This chapter provides additional

detail for some aspects of program management.

6. Chapter 6: Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution Process / Acquisition Life

Cycle Framework Alignment. This chapter provides a brief description of the relationship

between the Coast Guard Planning Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process

(PPBE) and the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF) as defined in the Major Systems

Acquisition Manual (MSAM).

7. Chapter 7: Acquisition Review Process (ARP). This chapter describes the administrative

process which provides senior leaders insight into the execution of acquisition programs

and the opportunity to assess the program’s relative maturity and readiness to continue to

move forward within the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF).

1-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

8. Chapter 8: Document Review and Approval Process. This chapter details the Coast Guard

and DHS review and approval processes for major systems acquisition documents.

B. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

Commandant (CG-9), the Acquisition Directorate was established to provide a single point of

management and to act as the systems integrator for all USCG major systems acquisitions.

Commandant (CG-9) also ensures that the processes and procedures identified in this Manual are

properly leveraged to obtain capable, supportable and sustainable systems within cost

parameters. In support of this objective, the Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, also

designated as the Chief Acquisition Officer (CAO), has defined the Directorate’s Vision and

Mission as follows:

Vision

The Coast Guard will be a model of acquisition excellence in government.

Mission

Efficiently and effectively deliver the capabilities needed to

execute the full range of Coast Guard missions.

1. Major Systems Acquisition Manual Objectives.

a. Major systems acquisitions use a disciplined program management approach and

structured methodology derived from the processes and procedures detailed in this

Manual.

b. This Manual defines the policies and procedures for acquisition Program Managers

(PMs) and their staff to plan, coordinate, and execute major systems acquisition

programs.

c. Objectives of the Major Systems Acquisition Manual include:

(1) Develop major systems acquisition processes and procedures that are flexible,

responsive, and allow PMs to exercise innovation and creativity to deliver

systems, products, and services to our customers within established cost,

schedule, and performance parameters;

(2) Manage major acquisition programs using a systems engineering approach that

optimizes total system performance and minimizes total ownership costs;

(3) Capitalize on opportunities to reduce the acquisition cycle time; and,

(4) Align Coast Guard major acquisition process with the DHS acquisition

management policy established in accordance with Reference (b).

2. Acquisition Knowledge. The websites below provide up-to-date acquisition information

useful to the acquisition workforce:

1-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

a. Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), specifically including FAR Part 34, Major

System Acquisition: https://acquisition.gov/browse/index/far;

b. Department of Defense (DOD) Acquisition, Technology and Logistics:

https://www.acq.osd.mil/;

c. DHS Connect: Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM):

http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/mgmt/parm/Pages/default.aspx;

d. Office of Acquisition Support and Systems Engineering Policy (CG-924) CG portal

site: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx;

e. DHS Connect: Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO):

http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/mgmt/ocio/

C. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION TEAM

1. The Coast Guard Acquisition Team is composed of program execution officials and

program stakeholders, which include Sponsors, Technical Authorities (TAs), and Support

Agencies/Offices.

2. Program execution involves acquisition officials in the direct chain of command from the

Coast Guard Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) to the PM responsible for executing

the program. Program stakeholders include personnel representing the Sponsor and user;

TAs responsible for implementing and ensuring programs are in compliance with

applicable standards, regulations, and processes; and, personnel performing program

support functions identified below. PMs are accountable to the program execution chain of

command as guided by stakeholder equities and technical authorities.

3. USCG acquisition activities include the conceptualization, initiation, design, development,

integration, testing, contracting, production, deployment or fielding, logistics support,

modification, disposal of systems and equipment, and services to satisfy approved needs

intended for use in support of assigned missions. Members of the Coast Guard Acquisition

Team include, but are not limited to:

a. Individuals in an acquisition billet;

b. Individuals who are substantially involved in defining, determining, and managing

acquisition requirements;

c. Individuals involved in acquisition planning and strategy;

d. Individuals who participate in the process of establishing the business relationship to

obtain needed products and services (e.g., contracting process: those involved in the

solicitation, evaluation, and award of acquisition contracts);

e. Individuals who manage the process after business arrangements have been made to

ensure that the Coast Guard’s needs are met (e.g., human systems integration, testing

and evaluating, systems engineering, managing and monitoring manufacturing and

production activities, auditing, contract administration, performance management

1-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

and evaluation, logistics support, systems security engineering, Section 508

accessibility, etc.);

f. Individuals who arrange disposal of any residual items after work is complete (e.g.,

property management/disposal);

g. Individuals who support the business and technical processes of the above listed

activities (e.g., TA, business/operational authority, program legal counsel or other

subject matter experts); and,

h. Individuals who directly manage those involved in any of the above activities.

4. Key acquisition career fields that are part of the acquisition team include those that are

involved in the following functions as they relate to acquisition programs:

a. Program and Project management;

b. Systems planning, research, development, and engineering;

c. Procurement, including contracting;

d. Business, cost estimating, and financial management;

e. Industrial and contract property management;

f. Facilities engineering;

g. Life Cycle Logistics/Product Support Management;

h. Information technology;

i. Production, quality, and manufacturing;

j. Testing and evaluation;

k. Configuration management; and,

l. Requirements management.

5. The Coast Guard Acquisition Team must support the mission needs of the USCG through

the direction of PMs/Assistant Program Executive Officers (APEOs) to deliver

operationally effective systems, equipment, and services within cost parameters to USCG

users by:

a. Engaging the fleet and Sponsors in a collaborative discussion of capability gaps and

materiel solution options prior to commitment of tax dollars;

b. Conducting market research and developing requirements with market and industrial

base awareness;

c. Prioritizing solutions which optimize interoperability, pursue cost reduction

opportunities, integrates program protection/cybersecurity and enhances operational

effectiveness and efficiency;

1-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Clearly defining, in conjunction with the Sponsor (or Sponsor's Representative), the

strategy, concepts, capabilities, concept of operations, and requirements;

e. Adhering to the acquisition policies, processes, and procedures published in federal,

DHS, and Coast Guard directives;

f. Accurately pricing programs and insisting the program and budget estimates reflect

realistic costs, recognizing technical, management, and integration risks;

g. Being accountable and delivering to realistic schedules and approved budgets;

h. Responding appropriately to Sponsor requirements within the boundaries of

applicable law, policies, regulations, directives, and procedures;

i. Using disciplined, tailored management practices which appropriately document

acquisition requirements, planning, and approvals;

j. Developing and implementing an effective performance-based product support

strategy within cost constraint objectives;

k. Executing test and evaluation, logistics, systems engineering, scheduling and other

functions commensurate with complexity, assigned program level, and risk; and,

l. Obtaining and maintaining the appropriate level of training, experience, and

acquisition certification.

D. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION LEADERSHIP TEAM

1. The Coast Guard Acquisition Leadership Team consists of the Commandant, the Vice

Commandant in the role of CAE, the Deputy Commandant for Mission Support (DCMS),

the Deputy Commandant for Operations (DCO), Commandant (CG-9) in the role of Chief

Acquisition Official (CAO), and members of the Executive Oversight Council (EOC).

2. ADE briefings are presented to the Coast Guard Acquisition Leadership Team through the

CG acquisition review forums (Executive Oversight Council (EOC), DCMS/DCO, CG

Acquisition Review Board (CG ARB).

3. ADE and annual reviews (NMAOC, EOC, DCO/DCMS and CG ARB) briefings are

scheduled by the Executive Secretary, Commandant (CG-924). Additional information

about the acquisition review process is found in Chapter 7.

1-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 1-1: Coast Guard Acquisition Review Forums

E. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION

1. PMs assigned to manage Level 1, 2, or 3 acquisitions must be certified in accordance with

Table 1-1, PM Certification Levels, or as directed by the CG CAO. Major Program T&E

Managers as Test and Evaluation (T&E) IPT leads are required to be certified Test and

Evaluation level III in accordance with Reference (e).

2. The Acquisition Directorate’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) #5 (series), Non

Contracting Acquisition Workforce Certifications, provides specific policies and provides

procedures and guidance for obtaining Acquisition Workforce Certifications for non-

contracting acquisition functional disciplines.

Note: Commandant (CG-9) is committed to charter only DHS certified Senior (Level III)

PMs for Level 1 and Level 2 programs. If the planned PM does not meet the criteria in

Table 1-1, Commandant (CG-9) routinely elects to charter the DHS certified Senior (Level

III) APEO or deputy APEO as the PM until the planned PM meets CG and DHS

certification requirements.

1-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Table 1-1: PM Certification Levels

DHS Acquisition Level Life Cycle Cost PM Certification Level ¹ ² IPT Lead Recommended

Cert Level

1 ≥ $1B Senior (Level III) Mid (Level II)

2 < $1B

≥ $300M

3 < $300M Mid (Level II)

Recommended

Entry (Level I)

1 Acquisition PMs for all DHS Level 1, 2, or 3 programs are required to have a current Federal Acquisition

Certification for Program Managers (FAC-P/PM) Certification and core-plus DHS Specialization Certification.

² PMs managing Major IT investments are required to have a FAC-P/PM certification and core-plus IT

Specialization Certification in accordance with Reference (c) and DHS FAC-P/PM policy.

3. The Procurement Policy and Systems Division, Commandant (CG-9132) provides review

and endorsement to DHS on certifications for the following acquisition career fields:

a. Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR); and,

b. Federal Acquisition Certification in Contracting (FAC-C) Certification.

4. Acquisition Workforce Certification Board (AWCB):

a. Commandant (CG-9) coordinates the AWCB established to review/endorse or certify

individuals who meet the standards (experience, education, and training) established

for a career level (Entry (Level 1), Mid (Level II), or Senior (Level III) in the non-

contracting acquisition functional disciplines listed below;

b. The Coast Guard AWCB provides review and endorsement to DHS, who is the

certifying authority for the following acquisition workforce career fields:

(1) Cost Estimation;

(2) Life Cycle Logistics;

(3) Program Financial Management;

(4) Program and Project Manager;

(5) Systems Engineering (SE);

(6) Test and Evaluation;

(7) Information Technology (IT)/Program Manager Specialization;

(8) Technology Manager, and,

(9) Requirements Management Specialization (RMS).

Note: For more information on acquisition certification, see DHS Acquisition

Workforce Policy #064-04 (series), or refer to DHS Connect:

http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/mgmt/ocpo/TrainingCareerDev.

1-7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. The Coast Guard AWCB establishes CG unique certification standards and acts as

certifying authority for the following acquisition functional discipline fields:

(1) Facilities Engineering;

(2) Information Technology;

(3) Production, Quality, and Manufacturing; and,

(4) Requirements Management.

Note: Further information on acquisition career fields is available on the Coast

Guard Acquisition Workforce Central Acquisition Workforce Certifications CG

portal page: https://CG portal2.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/1/CG-

9AcqCertsHome/default.aspx.

F. PROGRAM MANAGER (PM) AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

1. The PM is chartered with the responsibility and authority to accomplish program

objectives for developing, producing, and deploying a new asset, system, or service with

logistics support to meet defined operational requirements. PMs are responsible to the PEO

through their respective APEO to meet the cost, schedule, and performance parameters

established by the Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) while remaining within the

program’s allocated resources. The PM’s designation charter must further define the PM’s

responsibilities in accordance with DHS and Coast Guard policy and SOPs.

2. For interdependent programs:

Note: The term “interdependent programs” is defined as the circumstance when one program “provides” or “receives” a system, asset, service, data, or infrastructure to/from another program.

a. Both PMs should engage at cross domain and cross program IPTs, (e.g., program

configuration, interface control boards, etc.) in order to ensure integration and

interfaces are well understood and to provide oversight of integrated system

capabilities.

b. The PM of the program “receiving” the system, asset, service, data, or facility, must

endorse the requirements, schedule, and other appropriate documentation of the

program “providing” the system, asset, service, data or facility.

c. The PM of the program “providing” the system, asset, service, data or facility must

periodically update the “receiving” program PM of the cost, schedule, and

performance of the receiving activity via regular status briefs, Program Management

Reviews (PMRs), etc.

1-8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

G. ASSISTANT PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (APEO) AUTHORITY AND

RESPONSIBILITY

1. The APEO is the individual who has responsibility and authority to determine the strategic

vision of a specific domain (Aviation, Surface, or Command, Control, Communications,

Computers, Cybersecurity, Intelligence (C5I)), and establishes a domain focus across

programs. The APEO is accountable to the PEO for establishing program starts and

closeouts, and communicating with entities outside Commandant (CG-9).

2. The APEO leverages efficiencies and synergies across the programs as required to provide

oversight of domain PMs and to achieve overall cost, schedule, and performance goals of

integrated programs. The APEO ensures integration of relevant systems, assets, services,

data, and infrastructure among and across domain and program teams by reviewing and

endorsing key program documents to include requirements, schedules, and program plans.

The APEO must engage at appropriate cross domain and program IPTs, program

configuration and interface control boards, etc. in order to ensure and provide oversight of

integrated system capabilities from early life cycle stages through development and test

into production and deployment.

3. The APEO is responsible for:

a. Directing/managing a group of related capability programs within a domain (i.e.,

Aviation, Surface, or Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber and

Information Technology [C5IT]);

b. Applying sound risk-based decision making and domain portfolio analysis practices

to balance the many factors that influence domain cost, schedule, and performance in

order to support and meet overarching USCG mission goals and objectives;

c. Taking advantage of commonality and other synergies across programs within a

respective domain, and working with other APEOs to seek efficiencies between

domains;

d. Providing oversight, direction, guidance, and support to the acquisition PMs within

the domain;

e. Developing, coordinating, and representing the program business case and program

performance metrics;

f. Establishing processes and forums for cross domain and cross program collaboration,

resolving issues, and sharing lessons learned;

g. Providing input to the Commandant (CG-9) Acquisition Lessons Learned Database

system and incorporating best practices into follow-on acquisition programs;

h. Reporting progress to Coast Guard executive leadership and facilitating regular and

direct access to the PEO for all PMs;

1-9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

i. Coordinating with Commandants (CG-91) (Head of Contracting Activities) and (CG-

92) (Offices of Acquisition Services) to provide contracting, technical, workforce,

governance, and business management support for PMs;

j. During the Need and Analyze/Select Phases, and prior to the assignment of a PM,

supporting the Sponsor’s Representative on requirements development (Preliminary Operational Requirements Document (P-ORD) and Concept of Operations

(CONOPS)) in accordance with Reference (f) to ensure acquisition considerations

are included;

k. Managing a geographically dispersed workforce;

l. Supervising direct-report PMs;

m. Providing oversight for all domain-related plans and documentation to ensure

compliance with this Manual;

n. Liaising with Sponsors, TAs, appropriate APOs, Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)

managers and other members of the Acquisition and Support Directorates for their

appropriate participation in Program Management, Systems Engineering (including

systems integration), Logistics, Test and Evaluation, and Enterprise Architecture

activities;

o. Surface APEO only: Through the Asset Project Office (APO) Baltimore, ensure that

the Surface PMs are supported in executing all logistics related efforts in accordance

with the USCG Mission Support Business model;

p. Provide the PMs strategic goals to ensure the Program Management Office (PMO)

performs long-term planning and executes daily activities with a vision of the future;

q. Tracking and ensuring PMs meet Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) cost,

schedule, and performance parameters within approved budgets and reporting

adverse trends;

r. Monitoring and optimizing the planning, programming, and budgeting efforts for the

mission domain;

s. Ensuring the integration and submission of appropriate requests for resources needed

to develop, acquire, and support acquisition programs;

t. Coordinating with Commandant (CG-928) throughout the acquisition process and

providing financial documents to ensure a complete audit trail of domain and

program funds;

u. Ensuring the submission of all required financial reports and data to ensure the

domain is efficiently and effectively managed and supported;

v. Ensuring the domain is responsive to the requirements that are placed on it by

organizations within and outside the Coast Guard;

1-10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

w. Developing and coordinating external domain responses to external inquiries from

Congress, DHS, Government Accountability Office (GAO), congressional

testimonies, presentations, and data calls. Act as the authoritative and principal

source of information for internal and external inquiries and briefings on domain and

programmatic issues;

x. Maintaining liaison through Commandant (CG-924) with DHS organizations for

acquisition management issues;

y. Building relationships with other programs, stakeholders and domains;

z. Exercising control of USCG approval authority of acquisition reporting within the

DHS Investment Evaluation Submission and Tracking (INVEST) system;

aa. Supporting the Sponsor’s Representative in developing the initial OMB Business

Case for a new start program;

Note: “New start” refers to an item or effort appearing in the President’s Budget

(PB) for the first time. (DAU glossary)

bb. The APEO should be organized to oversee critical cross domain and cross program

support functions or services provided by two different USCG support program

offices. These are the Asset Project Office (APO) and the Major Acquisition Systems

Infrastructure (MASI) Program Office; and,

cc. Represent their respective acquisition domain (Aviation, Surface, C5IT) at Resource

Council meetings to discuss strategic funding implications on acquisition programs.

H. ASSET PROJECT OFFICE (APO)

1. APOs are established to support PM staff, provide logistics planning and analysis support,

assist with the integration of logistics into product development, and facilitate the

transition of sustainment responsibility to the appropriate Logistics/Service Center after

initial deployment. While the PM is responsible for overall program performance,

including logistics related efforts, an APO acts as an extension of the PMs’ staff to

coordinate and execute these activities in accordance with the USCG Mission Support

Business model. An APO organization is normally aligned to a Commandant (CG-9)

APEO Domain to support a program portfolio such as the Surface program domain, or

directly supports a specific program such as a new aviation asset.

2. The APO:

a. Supports PMs and acquisition Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) managers in

delivering assets/systems which are sustainable in a manner which meets the

Sponsor’s operational requirements;

b. In concert with ILS managers, develops and implements comprehensive

product/logistics support strategies for new acquisitions;

1-11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Supports development of the Acquisition Program’s Integrated Logistics Support

Plans (ILSPs) and manages/oversees development of ILS products (e.g., supply

support, federal stock system cataloging and maintenance development), consistent

with Reference (g), and this Manual, Section 1.Q. Engineering Technical Authorities

(ETA);

d. Plans and executes a seamless transition of new acquisition Product/Asset Lines into

the appropriate sustainment organization;

e. Supports the program PM in the development, establishment, and maintenance of

common logistics processes to promote standardized, efficient, and cost effective

support across programs;

f. Assists the PM in the development of cost requirements of LCCE logistics elements

based on common logistics processes in accordance with Reference (h);

g. Assists in the development of specifications, statements of work and contract data

requirements list (CDRL) for program logistics elements supporting life cycle

sustainment;

h. Provides subject matter expertise to support logistics test and evaluation, validating

any applicable supportability requirements; and,

i. Ensures the safe, timely, and cost effective disposition of decommissioned legacy

assets associated with their respective programs.

I. MAJOR ACQUISITION SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE (MASI)

1. The MASI program prioritizes and manages the application of resources to address the

facilities support needs associated with the acquisition of new or improved assets, such as

surface vessels and aircraft. MASI coordinates facilities construction projects that help

prepare field sites to receive, operate, and sustain new assets.

2. MASI is involved early in the planning stages of the program logistics support strategies

and maintains constant coordination with their “customer” PMs and APEOs to ensure

assets are supported with the appropriate facilities and infrastructure when deployed.

J. PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO)

1. The PEO has overarching responsibility for acquisition program management and

execution. This includes the oversight of all USCG major acquisition programs to

modernize and recapitalize Aviation, Surface, and C5I assets and logistics for the USCG’s

multiple missions prior to transition to sustainment. Programs are grouped into three major

domains (Aviation, Surface and C5I), each led by an APEO who reports directly to the

PEO. Within each portfolio, PMs are responsible to the PEO through their respective

APEO for the cost, schedule, and performance of their programs and the establishment of a

sustained logistics support capability for the asset being acquired. The PEO retains the

responsibility to develop, promote, and sustain integration and interoperability efforts

1-12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

across all relevant domains and acquisition programs throughout all phases of the

acquisition life cycle.

2. Under the general direction and supervision of the Assistant Commandant for Acquisition

(CG-9) the PEO:

a. Ensures compliance with DHS and Coast Guard policy and SOPs for major

acquisition programs;

b. Oversees acquisition, integration, and delivery of assets and systems. Ensures

development, maintenance, and/or compliance with all domain-related plans and

existing directives. Maintains complete, up-to-date documentation of actions and

decisions;

c. Provides direction and guidance for APEOs and PMs to define and best satisfy

program cost, schedule, and performance objectives while identifying and managing

risk throughout the acquisition life cycle;

d. Ensures that APEOs liaise with Sponsors, Engineering Technical Authorities

(ETAs), and support directorates in appropriate MSAM phase activities;

e. Consults with the Director of Contracting and Procurement, Commandant (CG-91)

in matters relating to acquisition strategy, competition, and contract management;

f. Ensures APEOs have full Contracting Officer support to successfully execute

acquisition programs;

g. Consults with the Director of Acquisition Services, Commandant (CG-92) in matters

related to workforce management, international sales, research, development, testing

and evaluation, resource management, acquisition support, systems engineering

policy and program governance;

h. Ensures APEOs have full access to all required support services to successfully

execute their domain including, but not limited to, required funding to execute their

domains and programs, contractor support services, cross-domain integration

support, information management tools and data, real-time metrics of cost, schedule,

and program performance; workforce training and staffing plans, business

management support to oversee cost and schedule, communication product support,

administrative support, work spaces and equipment required for duties and

workforce professional credentialing and certification;

i. Reviews and approves financial plans for Commandant (CG-93) programs. Ensures

information is provided to Commandant (CG-928), the Sponsor and Support

Program Managers (e.g., product line managers, service center managers) for

development of funding and other resource requests;

j. Acts as the principal Coast Guard spokesperson for all acquisition program status

and execution related issues;

k. Coordinates with Sponsors who must continue to serve as spokespersons for current

and projected operations and operational requirements;

1-13

COMDTINST M5000.10G

l. Provides effective internal communications to keep personnel properly informed of

domain and program developments and issues;

m. Serves as one of the principal USCG contacts to senior representatives from industry

and government agencies for the conduct of acquisition program management

activities;

n. Presses acquisition reform and promotes best practices and lessons learned,

optimizing matrix team participation and employing integrated product teams;

o. Aligns efforts with Commandant (CG-92), Sponsors, and support program directors

to address and resolve issues of mutual concern; and,

p. Approves negotiations and MOUs for Inter-Agency Support Agreements related to

major system acquisitions.

K. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR ACQUISITION (COMMANDANT

CG-9D)

The Deputy Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, Commandant (CG-9D) is the Coast Guard

Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer and fills the role and responsibilities of the CAO in the

absence of the CAO.

L. COAST GUARD CHIEF ACQUISITION OFFICER (CG-CAO)

1. The Assistant Commandant for Acquisition, Commandant (CG-9), is chartered by the CAE

to be the Coast Guard CAO. The CAO sets the strategic direction for Coast Guard

acquisitions and oversees the effective execution of all acquisition related functions.

2. Specifically, the CG CAO must:

a. Develop and manage Coast Guard acquisition policies and processes to ensure

effective management and appropriate oversight of Coast Guard acquisitions;

b. Serve as the primary representative for the Coast Guard at the DHS CAE Council;

c. Use functional experts to promote the use of systems acquisition and systems

engineering best practices and to provide/oversee the independent review and

assessment of acquisition programs. For more information on these independent

reviews, see Chapter 7 of this Manual;

d. Monitor the performance of acquisition programs through the use of cost, schedule,

and performance metrics and advise the Commandant, through the chain of

command, on the appropriate business strategies to best execute Coast Guard

acquisition programs;

e. Coordinate with Commandant (DCMS) to ensure all Level 1 and Level 2 acquisition

program managers are formally chartered. Ensure DHS Executive Director, PARM

is notified of PM assignments. Provide quarterly updates with changes in critical

acquisition staffing levels to DHS PARM;

1-14

COMDTINST M5000.10G

f. Ensure compliance with all applicable acquisition laws and policies including

Reference (a);

g. Ensure all program source system data are submitted, validated and updated on a

monthly basis within the Investment Evaluation, Submission, and Tracking

(INVEST) System as necessary, for all Level 1 and 2 major acquisition programs;

h. Serve as the ADA for ADE-2A, ADE-2B, ADE-2C and ADE-3 for all non-major

Level 3 acquisition programs not delegated to the Non-Major Acquisition Oversight

Council (NMAOC);

i. Serve as a member of the CG ARB;

j. Chair the EOC;

k. Design policies and processes to ensure that the best qualified persons are selected

for acquisition management positions (e.g., PMs, APEOs, Program Resident Office

[PRO] leads, etc.); and,

l. Ensure that Commandant (CG-9) personnel meet the USCG and DHS mandatory

education, training, and experience standards established for an acquisition career

level (Levels I, II, and III) in an acquisition career field.

M. EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT COUNCIL (EOC)

The EOC is a Flag/SES-level forum that monitors major risks, addresses emergent issues, and

provides direction to cross-directorate teams as required to support successful planning,

preparation, and execution of major acquisition programs. The EOC is chaired by the USCG

CAO, Commandant (CG-9), for all major acquisition and select Level 3 acquisition program

reviews. The EOC is responsible for integration of USCG systems acquisition across all mission

and functional domains.

Note: See Chapter 7 for more information on the EOC.

N. COMPONENT ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE (CAE)

1. The CAE is the senior acquisition official within the Coast Guard. The CAE is responsible

for implementation, management, and oversight of Coast Guard acquisition processes.

2. The CAE chairs the Coast Guard Acquisition Review Board (CG ARB).

Note: See Chapter 7 for more information on the CG ARB.

3. Responsibilities of the CAE are listed in the CAE Charter.

Note: The CAE Charter is found at the CG-924 port site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

1-15

COMDTINST M5000.10G

O. COAST GUARD ACQUISITION REVIEW BOARD (CG ARB)

The CG ARB is the USCG’s senior acquisition oversight advisory forum to discuss acquisition

program issues and make recommendations to the CAE (e.g., acquisition program preparedness

for an ADE).

Note. See chapter 7 for more information on the CG ARB.

P. SPONSOR AND SPONSOR’S REPRESENTATIVE

1. The Sponsor is the identified organizational element that initially develops and documents

the OMB Business Case, defines and validates functional requirements, and accepts

capability needed to support Coast Guard mission or business performance. Commandant

(CG-7), the Assistant Commandant for Capability, is primarily assigned as the Sponsor for

acquisitions, with the Sponsor's representative assigned from a Commandant (CG-7) office

(e.g., CG-711 Aviation forces, etc.). For SELC reviews of Coast Guard programs, the

Sponsor is also known as the Lead Operational Authority.

2. The Sponsor has the following responsibilities:

a. Working with Commandant (CG-PAE) and Commandants (CG-5R, CG-5P) in

planning and conducting Mission Analysis (MA) and in creating the Mission

Analysis Report (MAR);

b. Defining, maintaining, evaluating, and articulating organizational and program goals

and requirements through development of the Capability Analysis Study Plan

(CASP), Capability Analysis Report (CAR), Mission Need Statement (MNS),

CONOPS, P-ORD and the ORD in accordance with References (f) and (i).

c. Defining and determining in coordination with acquisition authorities, suitable

timeframes for the program’s initial operational capability (IOC) and full operational

capability (FOC). Defining and establishing a requirement for a Coast Guard Support

Date (CGSD) in accordance with Reference (h) for logistics support capability to

sustain the program;

d. Coordinating, assimilating, and providing end user input to the appropriate stage of

the SELC;

e. Identifying, prioritizing, coordinating and supporting all cybersecurity and threat

assessments, requirements, strategies and processes for all IT systems, components,

platform IT (PIT) programs and PIT systems in accordance with current

requirements of Reference (j) (FOUO);

f. Identifying and facilitating the resolution of issues tied to requirements and needs;

g. Requesting threat assessments through Commandant (CG-2) in accordance with

Reference (f);

1-16

COMDTINST M5000.10G

h. Defining, tracking, and evaluating program specific performance measures (e.g., Key

Performance Parameters [KPPs], IOC schedule, etc.), and communicating

operational requirements in measurable and testable terms;

i. Developing, updating, and establishing program doctrine, policies, and associated

concepts of operations, including operational or end user operational training

requirements;

j. Fulfilling the planning, programming, and budgeting functions of the Sponsor’s

organization to fully implement and support the needed capability, considering total

operating costs and the entire life cycle of the system;

k. Developing acceptance criteria (including performance) for capabilities and systems;

l. Conducting annual Operational Analysis (OA) on individual assets in accordance

with DHS Operational Analysis Guidance to determine the capability of current

assets to meet required performance, supportability and cost goals;

m. Consulting with the PM, and TAs to ensure Enterprise Architecture artifacts created

as part of the proposed acquisition are aligned to the Coast Guard's Enterprise

Architecture;

n. Develop and conduct concurrent clearance and approval processes for all appropriate

requirements documents in accordance with Reference (f); and,

o. Complying with and supporting the PM in developing acquisition documents, and

providing concurrent clearance inputs to applicable program documents as identified

in Chapter 8, Figures 8-1, 8-2 of this Manual.

3. The Sponsor’s Representative is designated by the Sponsor. The Sponsor’s Representative

must collaborate with the PM, policy and technical experts as well as customers, users and

stakeholders to ensure alignment and compliance with this Manual and its SELC policy.

The Sponsor’s Representative must be the advocate for delivery of affordable, effective,

resilient, sustainable and useable systems. The Sponsor and Sponsor’s representative must

attain and maintain all appropriate certifications for these positions in accordance with CG

Acquisition Workforce Certification requirements and Section 1.E. of this Manual.

4. The Sponsor’s Representative has the following responsibilities:

a. Coordinating concept approval for development of any new or existing system with

the Mission Manager,1 representatives of the TAs, and the Sponsor;

b. Articulating requirements for the Sponsor, users, customers, and stakeholders;

c. Working with the Commandant (CG-6) representative to ensure that any new or

existing C5IT system aligns with the Enterprise Architecture and cybersecurity

1 Mission Manager is defined in Coast Guard Operational Requirements Generation Manual, COMDTINST

M5000.4 (series) as Commandant (CG-5) representative who provides knowledge of mission analysis details and

intent.

1-17

COMDTINST M5000.10G

requirements of the Risk Management Framework (RMF) in accordance with

Reference (j);

d. Working with Commandant (CG-1B3) in defining crew performance requirements,

and requesting analysis to determine appropriate human performance support and

training;

e. Communicating and resolving issues identified with system development, operation,

or support;

f. Processing and relaying change requests, input, and feedback from users, customers,

and stakeholders;

g. Collaborating in the development of a Systems Engineering Life Cycle tailoring plan

for each program; and,

h. Supporting development and approval of acquisition documents through the

Sponsor.

Q. ENGINEERING TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES (ETA)

1. In accordance with Reference (a) and (g), Assistant Commandants (CG-1, CG-4, CG-6)

are designated by the Commandant as the Warranting Officers exercising DCMS

Engineering Technical Authority (ETA). ETAs have the delegated authority,

responsibility, and accountability to establish or assert engineering technical standards,

tools, processes, and best practices; monitor compliance with or use of them; and, certify

conformance with statute, policy, requirements, architectures, and standards. Reference (g)

addresses the definitions, roles, and responsibilities for the implementation of all ETA in

support of acquisition and sustainment programs. ETA representatives are core members in

relevant IPTs and help develop and/or provide concurrent clearance inputs to all applicable

program acquisition documents as identified in Chapter 8 of this Manual, Figures 8-3 and

8-4, Review, Approval and Concurrent Clearance Review Matrices.

a. The Assistant Commandant for Human Resources (CG-1) exercises ETA for Human

Systems Integration (HSI). HSI addresses the "human" component of the systems

engineering process to ensure systems are designed, produced, supported, fielded,

and modernized through a complete and careful integration of the human component.

This includes human factors engineering (HFE), manpower, personnel, performance

support and training, occupational health and system safety, habitability, and

personnel survivability design elements to be incorporated into the life cycle

development and management of Coast Guard systems. Additional areas of

Commandant (CG-1) technical domain responsibilities are covered in Reference (g).

b. The Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Logistics (CG-4) exercises ETA for

aeronautical, civil, and naval engineering, energy and environmental management;

and logistics for all Coast Guard systems. Additional areas of Commandant (CG-4)

technical domain responsibilities are covered in Reference (g).

1-18

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. The Assistant Commandant for Command, Control, Communications, Computer and

Information Technology (C4IT), Commandant (CG-6) exercises ETA for all

Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Cybersecurity and Information

Technology (C5IT) development, operation, and maintenance in the Coast Guard

regardless of system. C5IT systems include any enterprise equipment or

interconnected system or subsystem of hardware and software, or any national

security system that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation,

management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or

reception of data, voice, video, or information. Areas of detailed technical domain

responsibilities are covered in Reference (g). The CIO establishes initiative policies

for Enterprise Architecture, Information Assurance and Cybersecurity, bandwidth

management, etc. to ensure life cycle management of information.

R. TECHNICAL AUTHORITIES (TA) (NON-ENGINEERING) SPECIFICALLY

DESIGNATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REFERENCE (A)

1. The Assistant Commandant for Intelligence (CG-2) is the designated TA representative for

intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive Compartmented Information

networks, communications and spaces. Commandant (CG-2) also conducts and provides

threat assessments and threat reviews for all Coast Guard acquisition programs and

supporting analysis. These threat assessments are initiated early in the pre-acquisition

phase of the program, continue through the acquisition life cycle and are integrated with

the operational requirements generation process in accordance with Reference (f).

2. The Assistant Commandant for Resources (CG-8) is the Coast Guard CFO and executes

TA for Financial Management. Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Technical Authority,

COMDTINST 5402.3 (series) applies.

S. HEAD OF CONTRACTING ACTIVITY (HCA)

1. The Director of Contracting and Procurement, designated as the Head of Contracting

Activity (HCA), is aligned within the Acquisition Directorate (i.e., Commandant (CG-91))

to manage contracting policy for the entire USCG. This executive is responsible for

planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling all aspects of procurement policy and

operational contracting programs throughout the USCG. The HCA manages all of the

Coast Guard’s acquisition contracts and other procurements, as well as provides direct

contract support for Commandant (CG-93)’s acquisition program managers.

2. It is important that the HCA be involved as early as possible in the

acquisition/procurement planning processes. Whether the activity is a commodity purchase

or a complex major acquisition program, the HCA is a vital member of the acquisition

team. The HCA supports acquisition governance by ensuring that procurement strategies

align with the intent of program objectives. The HCA also ensures that the Coast Guard is

in compliance with all federal contract law and regulations.

1-19

COMDTINST M5000.10G

T. CONTRACTING OFFICER AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

1. The Contracting Officer has a unique role and responsibility in supporting program

execution.

2. In particular, the Contracting Officer:

a. Acts as the sole Government authority to enter into, administer, modify, or terminate

contracts and make related determinations and findings;

b. Ensures performance of all necessary actions for effective contracting, ensures

compliance with the terms of the contract, and safeguards the interests of the United

States in its contractual relationships;

c. Participates and supports program IPTs in the analysis, development,

recommendation and selection of contract types;

d. Ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, directives, regulations, and all

other applicable procedures, including clearances, approvals, and ethics have been

met;

e. Ensures that sufficient funds are available for obligation;

f. Ensures that contractors receive impartial, fair, and equitable treatment;

g. Requests and considers the advice of subject matter experts in audit, law,

engineering, cybersecurity, transportation, and other fields, as appropriate; and,

h. Ensures that contracts are structured to allow for effective valuation and

capitalization of each Coast Guard asset produced under contracts.

3. The proper exercise of this expertise requires the ability to act independently without

improper influence on business decisions. The Contracting Officer’s ability to exercise

independent business and professional judgment will result in excellent customer service to

the PM and facilitate timely and accurate documentation resulting in a successful contract

award and ultimately, a successful program. Therefore, Contracting Officers should be

identified early in the acquisition process to ensure they are part of the acquisition team

from the beginning.

U. COMMANDANT (CG-924) OFFICE OF ACQUISITION SUPPORT AND

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING POLICY AND PROCESSES

1. Develop and publish major and non-major systems acquisition program management

policies, processes and procedures that align with current DHS policies and incorporate

proven programmatic practices.

2. Develop and publish CG systems engineering policies, procedures and processes.

3. Assist Program Managers in navigating through the USCG and DHS acquisition process.

1-20

COMDTINST M5000.10G

4. Monitor program planning and compliance with major and non-major systems acquisition

policy and procedures at each milestone for all programs.

5. Serves as the EOC and CG ARB Executive Secretary with the following responsibilities:

a. Coordinates Coast Guard EOC and ARB meetings and provides administrative

support for effective meeting facilitation;

b. Monitors program progress;

c. Distributes documents to EOC and CG ARB members for review; and,

d. Prepares Acquisition Decision Memoranda (ADMs) for decision authority signature.

V. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

(COMMANDANT (CG-926))

1. Advises the Assistant Commandant for Acquisition on all matters related to Research and

Development, Developmental Test and Evaluation, Technology Readiness and Innovation.

Establishes priorities across those areas to ensure conformance with Secretary of

Homeland Security policy and guidance;

2. Collaborates with the PM to determine appropriate support for USCG Test and Evaluation

(T&E) program execution;

3. Conducts T&E oversight of test execution (Critical Test Events / Requirements

Verification Traceability); and,

4. Helps the PM develop T&E planning documents.

Intentionally Left Blank

1-21

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

1-22

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 2. SYSTEMS ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

A. SYSTEMS ACQUISITION PROCESS

The Coast Guard’s systems acquisition process implements the capital asset acquisition

policy embodied in accordance with Reference (a), FAR, OMB Circular A-11, and

Reference (b).

1. Systems Acquisition Management

a. This chapter defines the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF) and the process

for governance of Coast Guard Systems Acquisitions.

b. For this manual:

(1) Governance is the act of oversight of acquisition program execution (cost,

schedule, performance) and regulating progress through the USCG defined

ALF using senior stakeholder representative forums. The USCG acquisition

governance forums include the NMAOC, EOC, DCMS/DCO, and the CG

ARB.

(2) Oversight is the ability to obtain insight into acquisition program planning and

activities, and to determine successful adherence to respective policies,

standards, regulations, and law. These determinations should inform the

appropriate governance body as needed.

Figure 2-1: Management Interfaces

2. Program Management. The PM’s role is to integrate the three primary management areas

shown in Figure 2-1 Management Interfaces into a coherent strategy to achieve specific

cost, schedule, and performance parameters for their assigned programs.

2-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

a. Requirements Management. Requirements Management is a Sponsor and

Technical Authority (TA) managed process. Mission Analyses will identify the

deficiencies (gaps) that exist between current Coast Guard functional capabilities and

the required current or projected mission capabilities. The Sponsor defines the

mission need and translates them into operational requirements and the TA ensures

proper Coast Guard technical standards are incorporated.

b. Systems Acquisition Management. Systems Acquisition Management is the PM-

executed process of planning program activities and organizing a program staff to

achieve cost, schedule, and performance requirements identified in the Operational

Requirements Document (ORD) and funded in the budget.

c. Capital Investment Planning. Capital investment planning is performed through

the Planning Programing Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process that is a

calendar-driven fiscal process owned, managed and coordinated by Commandant

(CG-8). The program’s resource planning, management and supporting documentation is coordinated by the PM in collaboration with the Sponsor, TAs,

Commandant (CG-8) staff and the Office of Resource Management, Commandant

(CG-928).

3. Types of Systems Acquisition Programs. The acquisition program manager should

engage with Commandant (CG-924) for assistance to identify the initial acquisition type.

The DHS defined acquisition program types are:

a. Capital Asset Acquisition Program. Capital assets, as defined in OMB Circular A-

11, are land, structures, equipment, (including motor and aircraft fleets), and

intellectual property (including software), which are used by the Federal Government

and that have an estimated useful life of two years or more. Capital assets exclude

items acquired for resale in the ordinary course of operations or held for the purpose

of physical consumption such as operating materials and supplies. In addition to the

initially acquired capital asset, a capital asset acquisition program may include

additions, improvements, modifications, replacements, rearrangements and

reinstallations, and major improvements (but not ordinary repairs and maintenance).

b. Services Acquisition Program

(1) Service contracts are subject to upfront strategic alignment against capability

needs, even if the service requirements are not derived from a specific capital

investment.

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) for assistance in determining if an

anticipated services contract meets the Service Acquisition criteria below:

(a) Capability (Services) are planned to be obtained that require life cycle

support not inherent in the contract.

(b) Capability (Services) are planned to be obtained to provide direct

operational or business mission capabilities; and,

2-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(c) Meets Acquisition Level 1 or 2 cost thresholds in Table 2-1, Acquisition

Level Determination.

Note: For potential services acquisitions below the Level 2 cost

threshold, see Reference (k).

(2) New acquisitions of services supporting a capital asset program, after that

program has achieved Full Operational Capacity (FOC), are to apply the

criteria in paragraph 2.A.3.b.(1), above.

(3) Services acquisition programs may use the most appropriate type of contract

vehicles to meet the requirement.

(4) Interagency Services Acquisitions are governed by FAR 17.5. DHS policy on

interagency acquisitions is in the Department of Homeland Security

Acquisition Manual (HSAM), Section 3017.

Note: Services provided under Federally Funded Research and Development

Centers (FFRDCs) are to be managed by DHS (S&T) through the FFRDC

Program Management Office and are exempt from guidance in this manual.

c. Hybrid Acquisition Program. A hybrid acquisition program is a combination of

Capital Asset acquisitions and Services acquisitions to meet a mission need. The

acquisition program may have started out as purely a capital asset acquisition or

purely a service acquisition, but was changed to include both during the acquisition

process. The services acquisition portion of the overall program must be reviewed

and approved at an ADE-2A.

d. Urgent Operational Need (UON). The UON process is intended primarily for the

mitigation of materiel capability gaps caused by a watershed shift in the threat or

hazard environment that if not addressed in an expedited manner (e.g. fielded

capability in less than one year) could result in loss of life or imminent failure to a

mission, function or objective.

Note: The UON process is defined in Reference (i). The UON process is managed

through the DHS Joint Requirements Council. Contact Commandant (CG-771) to

initiate the UON process.

Note: UONs are managed outside of the MSAM.

e. DHS Rapid Acquisition Program

(1) DHS Rapid Acquisition Program policy, per Rapid Acquisition Department of

Homeland Security Instruction 102-01-011, Revision 0.1, Incorporating

Change #2, provides an alternative Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF)

to acquire non-developmental ready to field capability (e.g., a Software-as-a-

Service (SaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), Non-developmental Item (NDI),

Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) or Government Off-The-Shelf (GOTS)

solution).

2-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: The Rapid Acquisition ALF is different from the standard MSAM

defined ALF. If a Sponsor is considering the use of the Rapid Acquisition

process, first review DHS Instruction 102-01-011, Rapid Acquisition, and then

contact Commandant (CG-924) for assistance.

(2) To use the Rapid Acquisition Process, the solution is required to:

(a) Have a low risk of implementation;

(b) Be appropriately tested and evaluated before deploying;

(c) Meet a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of at least six with a low risk

of achieving TRL seven based on the sole limitation of demonstrating

the end item in an applicable operational environment; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) for assistance in defining TRL.

Proposed Rapid Acquisition program’s TRL will be validated by the

DHS Director, Office of Systems Engineering and Standards (OSES).

(d) Reach ADE-R2 within two years of the initial Rapid Acquisition

Decision Request Memorandum (RADRM) package approval.

Note: ADE-R2 is the rapid acquisition life cycle roughly equivalent to

ADE-3.

f. Selective Acquisition Program. A selective acquisition program requires special

handling due to security considerations. These should be coordinated through

Commandant (CG- 924) to DHS PARM.

g. Special Interest Programs. A program level may be labeled as “Special Interest” at

the discretion of DHS for any of the following reasons:

(1) Importance to DHS’ strategic and performance plans disproportionate to its

size;

(2) Executive visibility;

(3) Impacts more than one DHS Component or has significant program or policy

implications;

(4) Other reasons, as determined by the Deputy Secretary, DHS USM, or

Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA); and,

Note: A Level 3 program identified as “Special Interest” will be designated a Level 2 (Major Acquisition) program. See Table 2-1.

4. Systems Acquisition Program Execution

a. Systems Acquisition Program Elements. A systems acquisition program includes

planning, processes, people, integration, testing, production, logistics, and training in

support of equipment (Capital Assets), services, and intellectual property (e.g.,

2-4

– –

COMDTINST M5000.10G

software, data) that are acquired by the USCG through purchase, construction,

manufacture, lease, or exchange.

Note: DHS Level 1 and 2 programs are also referred to as Major Systems

Acquisitions and Level 3 programs are referred to as Non-Major Acquisitions.

Note: See Reference (k) for additional information on Level 3 program

determination and governance.

b. Systems Acquisition Programs may be established to:

(1) Develop new systems;

(2) Obtain additional quantities of existing systems/assets; or

(3) Provide significant changes to existing systems/assets such as capability

upgrades, improvements, service life extensions, remanufacturing, restorations,

re-activations, major modifications, key subsystem replacements, or major

repairs.

c. Acquisition Levels

(1) Acquisitions are categorized into levels which define the level of oversight

based on Program Life Cycle Cost Estimates (PLCCEs), Total Acquisition

Costs (TACs) and senior management interest.

Note: The USCG unique term PLCCE refers to the programs first Life Cycle

Cost Estimate (LCCE) in support of ADE-2A and is a combination of the

program’s LCCE and the required USCG Independent Cost Estimate (ICE).

(2) Use Table 2-1 to identify the acquisition level.

Table 2-1: System Acquisition Level Determination (Capital Assets, Services)

Acquisition Level Cost Thresholds

Capital Assets

Cost Thresholds Services

Acquisition

ADA

Level 11,2

(Major)

PLCCE: ≥ $1B TAC: ˃ $300M

Annual costs ≥ $1B DHS USM

Level 21,2

(Major)

PLCCE: ≥ $300M, ˂ $1B TAC: ≥ $100M, ≤ $300M

Annual costs ≥ $100M, ˂ $1B DHS USM

Level 33

(Non-Major)

PLCCE: ˂ $300M TAC: < $100M

Annual costs: ˂ $100M See Table 2-2: Coast

Guard Acquisition

Decision Authorities 1 All Acquisition Level 1 and 2 PLCCE's are approved by DHS CFO. 2 Prior to the formal LCCE, an acquisition is assigned a program level based on the Rough Order of Magnitude

(ROM) estimated cost. 3 A Level 3 program identified as “Special Interest” will be designated a Level 2 (Major Acquisition) program.

d. Delegation of ADA to the CAE. When acquisition decision authority is delegated

from DHS to the USCG CAE, use Table 2-2 to determine the CG ADA.

2-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Table 2-2: Coast Guard Acquisition Decision Authorities

ADE: 1 2A, 2B, 2C 3 4

Level 1 Level 1 programs will not be delegated to the component.

Level 2 CAE CAE CAE DCMS

Level 3 See Reference (k) for additional information on Level 3 program governance.

e. Master Acquisition Oversight List (MAOL)

(1) The MAOL is the sole authoritative list of Level 1 and Level 2 capital asset

acquisitions and service acquisition programs in DHS;

(2) The MAOL also includes Level 3 programs (valued >$50M) and DHS

identified sustainment (post – FOC) activities;

(3) The MAOL is updated quarterly by the PARM CCB and approved annually by

the DHS CAO; and,

(4) Programs on the MAOL are expected to report in accordance with DHS

INVEST reporting requirements. (See Reference (c) for further information).

f. Terminated, Cancelled, or Major Restructured Programs

(1) An ADM is required to document programs that are terminated, cancelled, or

restructured. The ADM serves as the permanent record of the ADA’s decision

regarding the program and the circumstances surrounding the cancellation,

termination or restructuring.

Note: A program restructure ADM may be issued by the ADA due to a breach

or if deemed necessary by the ADA.

(2) In accordance with Reference (c), programs that are cancelled/terminated are

required to complete a System Engineering Post Implementation Review (SE

PIR) in accordance with the DHS SELC policy. Submit the PIR report through

the DHS source system(s) and to the Executive Director, PARM. For more

information on PIR, contact Commandant (CG-924) or go to the Commandant

(CG-924) CG portal page at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

5. Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (CG-ALF) Definition. The CG-ALF

is in accordance with Reference (b). As shown in Figure 2-2 Systems Acquisition Life

Cycle Framework, the overall acquisition life cycle is composed of five distinct acquisition

phases with six ADEs.

Materiel Decision (MD): See page 2-15 or the glossary for a definition of MD.

ADE-1: Validate the Need;

ADE-2A: Approve the Program and Initiate Obtain Phase Activities;

ADE-2B: Approve the APB and Continue Obtain Phase Activities;

ADE-2C: Approve Low Rate Production or Incremental Delivery;

ADE-3: Produce and Deploy Program Products.

ADE-4: Acquisition Program Ends. Responsibility fully transferred to sustainment.

Figure 2-2: Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework

Note: CG-ALF Phases and ADEs are described in more detail in the Chapter 2 section for

each phase.

a. Acquisition Decision Events (ADEs)

(1) ADEs are critical knowledge-based, event-driven decision points throughout

the acquisition life cycle process that require assessment of program readiness

and risk.

Note: “Knowledge-based” describes the sequence of event-driven decisions

based on increased program maturity and knowledge of system performance

demonstrated through successful Systems Engineering reviews as a program

progresses through the CG-ALF.

(2) ADEs typically mark the transition from one phase to the next (ADE-1, ADE-

2A, and ADE-3) and key decision points (ADE-2B and ADE-2C) as

documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) signed by the

Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA).

(3) The appropriate USCG Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) for ADEs is

specified in Table 2-2 Acquisition Decision Authorities.

b. Tailoring the ALF

(1) In accordance with Reference (c), the ADA may tailor the ALF, either

unilaterally or based on a recommendation from the acquisition Program

Manager;

Note: Any tailoring of the ALF must be documented in an ADM.

2-7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(2) The acquisition PM requests tailoring of the ALF normally as part of an ADE

brief to the ADA;

Note: Planning efforts to tailor the ALF should include the program's IPT and

key stakeholders.

(3) Contact Commandant (CG-924) for information on the initiation of a

modification to the ALF.

c. Acquisition Documentation. PMs are accountable for the functions represented by

the program’s documents throughout the life of the acquisition program (ADE-1

through ADE-4) and the transition of the functions to the sustainment PM

culminating at ADE-4.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

B. CAPABILITY GAP IDENTIFICATION PHASE

Figure 2-3: Capability Gap Identification Cycle

1. Capability Gap Identification Overview

a. Scope

(1) CG Only Phase. The Capability Gap Identification Phase is a pre-acquisition

phase conducted by the USCG that provides context within the Acquisition

Life Cycle Framework (ALF) to identify and describe capability gaps of

USCG mission or operational capabilities. The approval of a Capability

Analysis Report (CAR) normally identifies the end of the Capability Gap

Identification Phase and the beginning of the Need Phase.

(2) Capability Gap Origins. Capability Gap identification may be driven by a

congressional or presidential mandate, user identified needs, conduct of a

capability assessment, results from Operational Analyses as well as needs for

technology refreshment, cybersecurity updates or new technology development

that provides a new capability or significant improvement in mission

performance.

(3) Annual Operational Analysis. The Sponsor(s), with support from Technical

Authorities (TAs), are responsible for conducting the OMB Circular A11

required annual operational analyses to validate the capability investment and

help identify capability gaps in missions or functions. The annual operational

analysis is an essential input to the Coast Guard through the Planning,

Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process and the Reference (a)

mandated Mission Analysis (MA). The MA is conducted by Commandant

(CG-PAE) in support of Commandants (CG-5R, CG-5P, CG-7) resulting in a

Mission Analysis Report (MAR).

2-9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(4) Mission Analysis Report (MAR). The MAR is a foundational link between

Coast Guard mission programs and the development of pre-acquisition

documentation (e.g., Capability Analysis Study Plan (CASP), Capability

Analysis Report (CAR), and Mission Needs Statement (MNS)).

Note: See Chapter 4, Requirements Life Cycle, of this Manual for more

information on the MAR and operational requirements documentation.

Note: Preparation for an Acquisition program ADE-1 normally begins after a

Coast Guard Materiel Decision (MD) supported by a Capability Analysis

Report (CAR) (See paragraph 2.C.1.b for the definition of Materiel Decision).

b. Objectives

(1) Identification of current and projected capability gaps and redundancies in how

the Coast Guard is equipped;

(2) Prioritization of USCG current and projected capability gaps; and,

(3) Early alignment to the Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution

(PPBE) process to compete for resources.

Note: Early identification of the potential program’s acquisition level and

acquisition type help shape the preparation for the Need Phase.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

2. Capability Gap Identification Phase Activities

Figure 2-4: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor Representative Activities Include:

(1) Support Commandant (CG-PAE) in the MA to identify capability gaps and in

developing the MARs;

(2) Conduct Operational Analysis;

(3) Leverage MAR and Operational Analysis results to support Capability

Analysis;

(4) Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at HQS-

DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil for guidance to develop Enterprise Architecture

(EA) artifacts to help define the potential acquisition program;

(5) Align to the calendar driven PPBE process, per Reference (l);

(6) Prepare a Budget Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate to support

budget proposals and early acquisition level determination;

Note: A “Budget ROM” is a term used in the MSAM to describe the artifact

developed by the Sponsor to provide a cost estimate to support the PPBE

process prior to Materiel Decision. (See paragraph 2.C.1.b for the definition of

Materiel Decision.);

(7) Initiate a CASP and/or CAR as required (See Chapter 4 of this Manual); and,

(8) Coordinate with the domain APEO (Commandants (CG-931 (Aviation), CG-

932, (Surface) & CG-933(C5I)), Commandant (CG-82), and Commandant

(CG-924) to facilitate early planning.

2-11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. Commandant (CG-PAE) Representative Activities Include. (See Chapter 4 of

this Manual)

(1) Initiate MA and coordinate with Commandants (CG-5R, CG-5P, CG-7), TAs,

Sponsor(s), and FORCECOM to identify mission capability gaps; and,

(2) Develop MARs with support from Commandants (CG-5R, CG-5P, CG-7), the

Sponsor(s), FORCECOM, TAs and acquisition support organizations.

c. Sustainment Organizations and Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and

(CG-6) Representatives Activities Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: In addition to the ETAs, Commandant CG-2 is designated by the Commandant

as Technical Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Assist the Sponsor in conducting Annual Operational Analyses.

(2) Maintain operational assets.

3. Documentation: Capability Identification Phase. MSAM documentation required for

approval or reporting during the Capability Identification Phase is presented in Table 2-3,

Capability Identification Phase Documentation.

Table 2-3: Capability Gap Identification Phase Documentation

Document Task Preparation Signed/Approved/Validate

Mission Analysis Report Update CG-PAE DCO

Capability Analysis Study Plan1 Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. Sponsor

Capability Analysis Report1 Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. Joint Requirements Council

(JRC) DHS

Budget ROM2 Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. Commandant (CG-82)

Enterprise Architecture (EA) Artifacts3 Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. Commandant (CG-671)

1 See Reference (f) for operational requirements development and approval.

2 The Budget ROM is the cost estimate used to support PPBE process. The format is defined by CG-82.

3 Contact CG-671 EA staff at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

The ALF Document Alignment Chart is on the Next Page.

2-13

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-5: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch CG-

ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the (CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-14

COMDTINST M5000.10G

C. NEED PHASE

Figure 2-6: Need Phase

1. Overview

a. Scope. The Need Phase programmatic activities begin with the Materiel Decision

and culminates with a successful ADE-1. This phase is led by the Sponsor in

coordination with stakeholders, including the Commandant (CG-9) functionally

aligned Domain Assistant Program Executive Officer (APEO) (Aviation, Surface,

C5I). At ADE-1, the designated acquisition Program Manager is chartered and

assumes responsibility for the acquisition program.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment

diagram found at the (CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Materiel Decision (MD). The Materiel Decision (MD) is not a formal event. It is a

recognition by the Sponsor and acquisition community that the Coast Guard has

elected, through the PPBE process, to formally request a resource allocation or has

received funding to fill a capability gap as defined in a Capability Analysis Report

(CAR) and meets the criteria of an acquisition. This recognition (typically early in

the Need phase) by the Sponsor and acquisition community triggers the preparation

for ADE-1.

Note: For programs that meet the criteria for a Level 3 (Non-Major) program, see

Reference (k).

c. Objectives

(1) Program Management progressively transitions from a Sponsor-led initiative to

an Acquisition Program Manager-led program at ADE-1 fully prepared to

execute a cost/schedule efficient Analyze/Select; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) for recommendations to prepare for

early Analyze/Select Phase activities.

2-15

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(2) Provide maximum time to execute Need Phase activities by kicking off the

Need Phase as soon as possible after Materiel Decision.

Note: Pre ADE-1 preparation for a major acquisition can take two years

including development and approval of a MNS, ROM, and CDP. The Sponsor

may also initiate the Initial-CONOPS and P-ORD.

Note: Two years is the approximate time between the PPBE Resource

Allocation Plan (RAP) submission and the potential availability of

appropriated funds.

2. ADE-1 Definition

a. ADE-1 (Validate the Need). The ADE-1 decision validates the need for a Level 1 or

2 (major) acquisition program that aligns to strategic USCG and DHS objectives and

ensures adequate planning and resourcing for future phases.

b. Entrance Criteria

(1) Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for total cost of the prospective acquisition

program, and a separate ROM for the Analyze/Select Phase of the prospective

acquisition program. The Analyze/Select Phase ROM may be included in the

program ROM as long as the Analyze/Select Phase costs are clearly identified;

Note: For guidance in the development of a ROM, Contact Commandant (CG-

9283) Cost Estimating and Analysis Branch at: HQS-DG-

CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

(2) Preliminary determination of the Acquisition Program Level by the CG CAO

(as delegated) based on the ROM estimate;

Note: The CG CAO should consult with the Executive Director, PARM and

DHS CFO to ensure alignment.

(3) Approved acquisition documentation required for ADE-1, outlined in

Table 2-4 ADE-1 Documentation;

(4) Determination that the acquisition is the appropriate solution by means of a

JRC-validated and ADA-approved Mission Need Statement (MNS);

(5) Completed a review by the Coast Guard Enterprise Architecture Board (CG

EAB) and the DHS (EAB), as directed by the CG-EAB;

Note: Contact the USCG Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-

671)) to determine if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review

and IT assessment. For assistance, contact the Chief Architect technical staff

(Commandant (CG-671)) at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil.

(6) Successful completion of a SELC ITR documented in a SELC review

completion memo. The ITR is intended to ensure the new prospective program

is defined sufficiently to proceed into the next phase; and,

2-16

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(7) A plan for staffing of critical acquisition positions needed for the next

acquisition phase of the program. The acquisition-staffing plan is coordinated

by the Commandant (CG-93) Domain APEO (Aviation, Surface, C5ISR) and

Commandant (CG-921).

c. ADE-1 Expected Outcomes

Note: The DHS-ARB Acquisition Review Process (ARP) steps are detailed in

Chapter 7.

(1) CG ARB ADE-1 Expected Outcomes.

(a) CG ARB concurrence that the program is prepared to proceed to the

DHS-ARB;

(b) Charter of a qualified PM (see Table 1-1 PM Certification Levels); and,

(c) CAE authorization to proceed to DHS for ADE-1.

(2) DHS Acquisition Review Board ADE-1 Expected Outcomes.

(a) Authorization for the program to proceed past ADE-1 signifies:

[1] Satisfactory completion of the ADE-1 entrance criteria;

[2] Alignment of needs to strategic DHS direction;

[3] Agreement of preliminary acquisition level determination;

[4] The program is adequately resourced to execute the program plan

for the Analyze/Select Phase as defined by the CDP;

[5] The point of initiation for the program’s addition to the DHS

Master Acquisition Oversight List (MAOL);

[6] Authorization to proceed with supporting contract actions to

initiate Analyze Select activities; and,

[7] Acknowledgement of program risk (Programmatic, Technical,

manufacturing, etc.).

(b) Approve documents in accordance with Table 2-4;

(c) Approval of ALF tailoring requested by the program;

(d) ADA specific direction for the next phase; and,

(e) ADA issuance of an ADM.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-17

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. Need Phase Activities

Figure 2-7: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Complete documentation as defined in Table 2-4, ADE-1 Required

Documentation;

(2) Prepare the Capability Analysis Report (CAR), as directed by the Sponsor for

validation by the JRC, if not previously completed in support of the PPBE

process. Go to Chapter 4 for a more complete discussion on Operational

Requirements;

(3) As soon as practicable after Material Decision, coordinate a brief with the

Commandant (CG-9) Domain APEO (PM if assigned) to present to

Commandant (CG-9) and Sponsor (normally Commandant (CG-7)) the Need

Phase execution coordination needed to achieve ADE-1;

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) for recommendations on ADE-1

preparation. The template for the Need Phase execution brief may be found on

the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

(4) Develop the MNS, as directed by the Sponsor;

(5) In collaboration with the Domain APEO (PM if assigned) prepare a Rough

Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for the Analyze/Select Phase in

accordance with Chapter 9 of the DHS CFO Financial Management Policy

Manual (FMPM).

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-9283), at HQS-DG-G9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

as soon as practicable after the materiel decision for guidance on the

development of a ROM.

(6) Coordinate the Evaluation of Affordability with Commandant (CG-82);

2-18

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(7) Coordinate the ADE-1 briefs;

(8) Contact Commandant (CG-1B3) to initiate Human Systems Integration

planning and analysis;

(a) Identify HSI unique human factors, human engineering requirements and

human capabilities/manpower constraints to support the MNS, Initial

CONOPS and p-ORD;

Note: Early identification of HSI constraints is fundamental to the

development of the MNS, Initial CONOPS and p-ORD;

(b) Ensure the use of HSI analysis for the CDP and AASP development;

and,

(c) Execute additional tasks as identified by Commandant (CG-1B3) to

conduct the necessary pre-acquisition HSI analysis.

(9) Enterprise Architecture (EA) activities include:

(a) Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at

HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate EA activities;

(b) Complete a Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF)

Architecture Overview and Summary (AV-1) and supporting DoDAF

diagrams to support the development of the operational requirements

documents (e.g. MNS, initial CONOPs, P-ORD); and,

(c) Prepare for a Pre-ADE-1 CG-Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB)

review and if directed by the CG-EAB, a DHS-EAB review;

(10) Program Protection/Cybersecurity activities include:

(a) Identify legacy or related program’s Program Protection / Cybersecurity documentation;

(b) In coordination with the MNS and initial CONOPS threat reviews,

identify and assess the program’s projected threat and security environment;

Note: Contact the Commandant (CG-2) Acquisition Support Team via

email at HQS-DG-LST-CG-2-AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil;

(c) Initiate Risk Management Framework (RMF) Preparation activities.

Contact Commandant (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff for

assistance; and,

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-DG-

LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and if

2-19

COMDTINST M5000.10G

directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS Information

Safeguarding & Risk Management Council (ISRSMC).

(d) Integrate Program Protection / Cybersecurity requirements and planning

activities into the CDP in coordination with the APEO (PM if assigned).

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative Activities Include:

(1) Complete documentation as defined in Table 2-4, ADE-1 Required

Documentation;

(2) Coordinate the PPBE process; and,

(3) Coordinate the evaluation of affordability.

Note: Affordability is defined as a determination that the ROM life cycle cost

of an acquisition program is compatible with the investment and force structure

plans of the USCG.

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1), (CG-4), (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: Commandant (CG-2) is designated by the Commandant as Technical

Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Support the Sponsor and PM in preparation for ADE-1.

(2) Member of the program IPT (if formed); and,

(3) Support the SELC Review process described in Chapter 3.

d. APEO (PM if assigned) Activities Include:

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) for recommendations to prepare for early

Analyze/Select Phase activities.

(1) Complete documentation as defined in Table 2-4, ADE-1 Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

1 EOC review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be

scheduled until all required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM

or uploaded into the DHS Data Source System and an electronic copy sent to

Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

(2) Consider designating a stakeholder-working group or charter a Need Phase

program management IPT;

2-20

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Develop, in coordination with the assigned Contracting Officer, an acquisition

contracting schedule for Analyze/Select Phase preliminary contracting

activities;

(4) For prospective acquisition programs originating from operational assets in

sustainment (e.g., SLEP, MMA, etc..), contact the sustainment ILS manager to

initiate alignment of ILS functional planning;

Note: If there is not a defined ILS manager, contact the sustainment Product

Line Manager (PLM) or Sustainment PM.

(5) Develop the CDP to identify programmatic requirements, resources and

activities for the Analyze/Select phase;

(6) Develop an Integrated Government Schedule (IGS) for the Analyze/Select

Phase to include contracting Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT)

timelines;

Note: See Chapter 5 and the Commandant (CG-93) IGS Guidebook for more

information related to IGS development and stakeholder engagement. Contact

the Commandant (CG-93) Technical Director for the most up to date IGS

Guidebook.

(7) Document the staffing plan of critical acquisition positions needed for the

Analyze/Select Phase;

(8) Conduct the ITR and gain approval of the ITR completion memo to support

ADE-1 (See Chapter 3 for ITR requirements);

(9) In preparation for the ITR and ADE-1, assist the Sponsor in the coordination of

Need Phase documentation as outlined in Table 2-4, ADE-1 Documentation;

and,

(10) Coordinate the ADE-1 briefs with the Sponsor;

Note: See Chapter 7 for details on the Acquisition Review Process (ARP);

e. Contracting Activities Include:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks into the Program’s CDP schedule;

Note: The assigned Contracting Officer and Program Manager must ensure that

the Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT) is in agreement with the

IGS. See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(2) For Need Phase support contracts and preparation for Analyze/Select support

contracts (e.g., AA, LCCE):

(a) Coordinate the designation of the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for

the major development contract;

2-21

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(b) Coordinate the Procurement Strategy Roadmap (PSR) presentation to

DHS; and,

(c) Supported by the PM, gain approval of each contract’s Acquisition Plan

(AP).

(3) For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91)

CG portal site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For

the procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition

Road Map (ARM) at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

f. Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) (if applicable) Activities

include:

(1) Provide analytical evaluation, technology demonstration, and Modeling and

Simulation (M&S) support for CONOPS development, if requested; and,

(2) Support planning and conduct of the Analyze/Select Phase.

4. Documentation

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-1 EOC

review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be scheduled until all

required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM uploaded into the DHS Data

Source System and an electronic copy sent to Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

Table 2-4: ADE-1 Documentation

Document Task Preparation Approval

Mission Need Statement Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. JRC¹/CAE/DHS ADA

ROM Cost Estimate2 Prepare Sponsor’s Rep COMDT CG-82

Evaluation of Affordability Prepare COMDT (CG-82) COMDT (CG-8)

Capability Development Plan Prepare APEO (PM - if assigned) COMDT (CG-9)

/DHS ADA

SELC Review Completion

Letter3

Prepare APEO (PM if assigned) COMDT (CG-9)

Enterprise Architecture (EA)

Artifacts4

Prepare Sponsor’s Rep. COMDT (CG-671)

1 JRC is validation authority in accordance with References (f) and (i);

2 The ROM cover memo to Commandant (CG-8) may be used to document signature approval.

3 SELC review completions include ITR and other reviews conducted as applicable (see Chapter 3 of this Manual).

4 Contact CG-671 EA staff at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil.

See the ALF Document Alignment Chart on the on the back of the next Page.

2-22

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

The ALF Document Alignment Chart is on the Next Page.

2-23

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-8: ALF Document Alignment – Need Phase

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch CG-

ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-24

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. ANALYZE/SELECT PHASE

1. Analyze/Select Phase Overview

Figure 2-9: Analyze/Select Phase

a. Scope

(1) The Analyze/Select Phase begins with a successful ADE-1 and culminates

with an ADE-2A. After a successful ADE-2A, the program is approved to

initiate the Obtain Phase and is authorized to execute contracting actions to

pursue the program’s proposed technical approach.

(2) A program will generally have one ADE-2A to approve initiation of the

program.

(3) Additional ADE-2A decisions may be required to support initiation of

supporting projects/discrete useable segments of capability that were not

approved at the original ADE-2A.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to the CG-ALF Analyze/Select Phase

ADE-1 through ADE-2A activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant

(CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Analyze/Select Phase Objectives

(1) Achieve a successful ADE-2A decision fully prepared to execute the Obtain

Phase;

Note: The PM should meet with Commandant (CG-924) and review the

Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site to discuss the historical timelines to

complete Analyze/Select Phase tasks.

(2) Transition technical understanding from a broad operational description (e.g.,

CONOPS and ORD) of a capability gap to the knowledge level necessary to

support the development of the technical aspects of a contract solicitation

2-25

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(Request for Proposal (RFP)) (e.g., Specification, CDRLs, Statement of Work,

and contract sections),

(3) CAE selection of the preferred capability gap solution;

Note: The CAE preferred solution decision informs the completion of the

ORD, PLCCE, PSR and other program documentation.

(4) Develop a complete and executable Integrated Government Schedule (IGS);

and,

(5) Gain USCG CAE approval of the non-breachable preliminary APB (p-APB).

2. ADE-2A Definition (Approve the Program and Initiate Obtain Phase Activities)

a. Entrance Criteria

(1) Completed acquisition documentation as required by Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

2A EOC review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be

scheduled until all required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM,

uploaded into the DHS Data Source System and an electronic copy sent to

Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

(2) Assigned an acquisition PM to the program who meets the certification

requirements found at Chapter 1, Section E of this Manual, Table 1-1, PM

Certification Levels;

Note: Commandant (CG-9) is committed to charter only DHS certified Senior

(Level 3) PMs for Level 1 and Level 2 programs. If the planned PM does not

meet the criteria in Table 1-1, Commandant (CG-9) routinely elects to charter

the DHS certified Senior (Level III) APEO or deputy APEO as the PM until

the planned PM meets CG and DHS certification requirements.

(3) Prepared a plan for staffing of critical acquisition positions needed for the next

acquisition phase of the program;

(4) Completed requirements for DHS OCIO Enterprise Architecture Board for IT

programs (including IT assessment) and for IT portions of non-IT programs

(Platform Information Technology (PIT) and PIT Systems), if applicable;

Note: Contact the USCG Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-

671)) to determine if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review

and IT assessment. For assistance, contact the Chief Architect technical staff

(Commandant (CG-671)) at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil.

(5) Completed DHS S&T technical assessment (See Chapter 3 for more

information on SE and Technical Assessment alignment);

2-26

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: The technical assessment is completed through processes established by

DHS Directive 102-05 Rev 00, Technical Assessments. Program Technical

Assessments are normally initiated by the DHS S&T Director Office of

Systems Engineering (DOSE) staff. When contacted by DOSE, the PM should

inform the Commandant (CG-93) Technical Director (TD) and Commandant

(CG-924).

(6) For programs with a planned ADE-2C, propose to the ADA, as part of the

DHS-ARB presentation, the number of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)

units or limited deployments; and,

(7) Addressed all of preceding Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) action

items.

b. ADE-2A Expected Outcomes

Note: The DHS-ARB Acquisition Review Process (ARP) is detailed in Chapter 7.

(1) CG ARB ADE-2A Review Outcomes.

(a) CG ARB concurrence that the program is prepared to proceed to the

DHS-ARB;

Note: Go to the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for the current

ADE briefing slide template. The Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site

is found at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(b) Establishment of the program non-breachable baseline through the CG

approved preliminary APB (p-APB);

(c) CAE authorization to proceed to DHS for ADE-2A;

(2) DHS ARB ADE-2A Review Outcomes.

(a) Authorization for the program to proceed past ADE-2A signifies:

[1] Satisfactory completion of the ADE-2A entrance criteria;

[2] Acceptable cost based on the CFO Certification of Funds Memo.

The Certification of Funds memo must indicate that the program is

fully resourced throughout the Future Years Homeland Security

Program (FYHSP), consistent with the program’s LCCE at the 50% confidence level, unless a higher confidence level is selected

by the ADA based on risk;

Note: See CG-82 Activities for more information on Certification

of Funding.

[3] Approval of the program use and structure of discrete segments;

[4] Approval of the services acquisition portion of the overall

program;

2-27

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[5] Approval of LRIP quantities and or Limited Deployments; and,

[6] Approval of documents in accordance with Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation.

(b) Final ADA determination of acquisition level for the program/discrete

segments based on the approved LCCE;

(c) Approval of the USCG recommendation for the overall best capability

solution that provides the required performance at acceptable cost,

schedule, and risk;

(d) Authorization to proceed with supporting contract actions to initiate

Obtain Phase activities;

(e) ADA specific direction for the next portion of the Obtain Phase; and

(f) ADA issuance of an ADM.

3. Analyze Select Phase Activities (Preparation for ADE-2A):

Figure 2-10: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Member of the Program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: See Reference (f) for information on the use of an operational

requirements IPT.

(3) Contribute to the development of the draft specification;

(4) Advocate for the program within the PPBE process; and,

2-28

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(5) Support the SELC Review approval process as explained in Chapter 3.

b. Commandant (CG-82) Activities Include:

(1) Member of the Program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation; and,

(3) Supported by the Sponsor and PM, coordinate the evaluations of affordability

and executability.

(a) Affordability is determined through the PPBE process.

Note: Affordability is defined as a determination that the life cycle cost

of an acquisition program is compatible with the investment and force

structure plans of the USCG.

(b) The executability determination is supported by the Certification of

Funding memo.

Note: A program is executable if the program manager (PM) has

adequate near-term approved funding. Near-term approved funding

evaluation is normally supported by the current Future Years Homeland

Security Program (FYHSP) Capital Investment Plan (CIP).

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1), (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility as designated in writing by the Commandant in accordance with

Reference (a).

Note: Commandant (CG-2) is designated by the Commandant as Technical

Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(3) Support the execution of Technical Management activities as defined in

section 3.e.(10) below; and,

(4) Support the SELC Review approval process. See Chapter 3 for more

information.

2-29

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Contracting Officer Activities Include:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks into the Program’s Integrated Government

Schedule;

Note: The assigned Contracting Officer and Program Manager must ensure that

the Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT) is in agreement with the

IGS. See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(2) Coordinate with the PM to identify the Source Selection Authority (SSA) at

the earliest opportunity;

(3) Coordinate the Procurement Strategy Roadmap (PSR) presentation to the DHS

CPO;

(4) Early in the Analyze/Select Phase, inform the PM of the PM’s contract

solicitation development responsibilities defined in the Coast Guard

Acquisition Procedures Manual (CGAP);

Note: Find the CGAP at the CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/CG913/CGAP/Pages/CGAP.aspx.

(5) Supported by the PM, gain approval of the Acquisition Plans (APs);

(6) Provide the PM with a recommended submission date to the Contracting

Officer for the draft contract Procurement Request (PR) information (e.g.,

Draft Specification, Draft CDRLs, Draft Statement of Work (SOW) and Draft

contract sections) to meet the planned release of the Draft RFP; and,

Note: The Contracting Officer Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT)

activities do not normally start until the Contracting Officer has a final

Procurement Request (PR) package

(7) For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91)

CG portal site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For

the procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition

Road Map (ARM) at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

e. Program Manager Activities Include:

(1) General Programmatic Activities Include:

(a) Ensure completion of documentation listed on Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

(b) Align interdependent program relationships;

Note: Interdependent programs (glossary) provide or receive an asset,

system, data or facility to or from another acquisition program.

Interdependent programs are small boats or aviation systems/assets

hosted on a Cutter, IT systems hosted on platforms, etc. and are normally

explained in the Program Management Plan (PMP).

2-30

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[1] Participate on interdependent acquisition program’s IPTs; and,

[2] Ensure interdependencies are recognized in the interdependent

program’s acquisition documentation.

Note: Interdependency interfaces must be managed to ensure that

the subsystems/products meet the requirement and schedule of the

receiving (host/platform) program.

(c) Define the LRIP quantities and number of limited deployments to be

approved at ADE-2A;

(d) Initiate configuration management planning and establish a

Configuration Control Board (CCB), in accordance with Reference (m)

and its associated Configuration Manager’s Handbook;

(e) Conduct Commandant (CG-9) Acquisition Executive Reviews (AER) in

accordance with Reference (n) (e.g., AA, SAR, Contract Spec, PDR,

LCCE, etc.);

(f) Coordinate with the Contracting Officer the timeline for the Procurement

Strategy Roadmap (PSR) presentation to the DHS CPO;

(g) Draft the required Acquisition Plan(s) (AP) in coordination with the

Contracting Officer;

Note: For approval of the AP, an Information Technology Acquisition

Review (ITAR) must be completed to include a 508 evaluation. The

USCG ITAR approval timeline can exceed 4 calendar weeks. See the

Commandant (CG-6) SOP 7700 ITAR for the ITAR format and approval

process.

Note: The ITAR required for the AP approval process is not the same as

the International Trade Agreement also referred to as ITAR. For a POC

for International Trade Agreement Review process information go the

Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(h) If required, implement the Independent Red Team Review of Request for

Proposals in accordance with Reference (o).

Note: Coordinate Red Team funding estimates with Commandant (CG-

924).

Note: The PM should ensure the schedule for the Red Team is

incorporated into the program’s IGS.

(i) Deliver to the Contracting Officer a fully integrated final (“pens down”)

Solicitation (RFP) Procurement Request (PR) with the latest technical

and programmatic information (e.g., Final Specification, Final Statement

of Work, Final CDRLs, and Final Contract sections); and,

2-31

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: The delivery of the program’s RFP input should align to the Contracting Officer’s contract execution PALT necessary to meet the program’s IGS contract execution objective date.

Note: The Contracting Officer Procurement Administrative Lead Time

(PALT) RFP approval activities normally do not start until the

Contracting Officer has received a final (“pens down”) PR package.

(j) Submit program business reporting as directed by the DHS Master

Acquisition Oversight List (MAOL).

Note: IT programs have Capital Planning & Investment Control (CPIC)

reporting requirements. The business case and CPIC information are

reported through the DHS data reporting system.

(2) Integrated Product Teams (IPT)

(a) All acquisition programs must have a chartered program matrix IPT

organized in accordance with the Commandant (CG-93) IPT Guidebook

found at the Commandant (CG-93) CG portal site;

(b) The PM will charter subordinate/supporting IPTs as necessary to achieve

the program objectives; and,

(c) Table 2-5 identifies the required IPT functions which must be

represented in the program matrix IPT charter or in function focused IPT

charters.

Note: The PM may organize the IPT functions to best suit the PM’s

ability to manage. IPTs functions may be combined in whole or in part.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-32

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Table 2-5: Required Program IPT Functions

IPT Functions to be addressed More Information found at:

Program Management (PM) CG-9 Integrated Product Team (IPT)

Guidebook

Configuration Management & Control IPT/

Configuration Control Board (CCB)

Coast Guard Configuration Management Policy

(COMDTINST 4130.6 (series))

Integrated Logistics Support Management Team

(ILSMT)

The Coast Guard Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Manual

(COMDTINST M4105.14 (series))

Operational Requirements (Sponsor Led IPT) Coast Guard Operational Requirements Generation Manual

(COMDTINST M5000.04 (series))

Program-Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk

Management (P-CARM)

Cybersecurity Through the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework

(DHS 102-01-012)

Risk Management IPT/Board

Acquisition Directorate (CG-9) Standard Operating Procedure #7,

Program Risk Management and Mishap Risk Management (CG-9

SOP #7)

Systems Engineering & Interface Control IPT

(recommended)

Contact Commandant (CG-924) for more information and proven

practices.

Test & Evaluation Working IPT (WIPT) DHS 026-06-001-01, Revision 01, Test and Evaluation Master

Plan (TEMP)

(3) Risk Management.

(a) Conduct Risk Management in accordance with Reference (p);

(b) Establish a Risk Management IPT/Board;

(c) Designate a Risk Manager in accordance with Reference (p); and,

(d) Conduct risk management and risk reviews in accordance with the

program’s Risk Management Plan (RMP).

(4) Alternatives Analysis (AA)/Preferred Solution Recommendation.

Note: The AA for a Level 1 or Level 2 program is conducted by an

independent third party in accordance with Reference (c).

(a) Initiate the AA process with the nomination of the Study Plan Director

for approval by Commandant (CG-9); and,

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on the AA and preferred

solution recommendation Process;

(b) Recommend the preferred solution to the CAE based on the results of the

AA and Solution Analysis Review (SAR) (See Chapter 3 for more

information on the SAR).

Note: The Preferred Solution Decision recommended process is found in

Chapter 5. The Preferred Solution Decision is necessary to complete

other critical acquisition tasks to include: finalize the LCCE/ICE; PPBE

2-33

COMDTINST M5000.10G

affordability determination; Systems Engineering functions; and;

Procurement Strategy Roadmap.

(5) Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE).

(a) Initiate LCCE planning by requesting an engagement plan memo from

Commandant (CG-9283) prior to the Study Plan Review (SPR); Contact

Commandant (CG-9283) at HQS-DG-CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

[1] The first LCCE developed to inform ADE-2A is referred to within

the CG as a Program Life cycle Estimate (PLCCE) which is the

reconciliation of the Program Management Office (PMO) cost

estimate and the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE). The ICE is

required in accordance with Reference (a).

[2] The PLCCE development may begin early in the Analyze/Select

Phase, but will be finalized using the result of the CAE preferred

solution determination to support the preliminary APB.

(b) Contact Commandant (CG-9283) in accordance with the program

engagement plan to:

[1] Prepare the Cost Estimating Baseline Document (CEBD);

Note: The CEBD provides a technical, programmatic, and schedule

description of the program requirements to inform the cost

estimating teams developing the Program Management Office cost

estimate and the Independent LCCE (ICE);

[2] Prepare a program Work Breakdown Structure (WBS);

Note: The WBS supports LCCE development by dividing the

program into cost elements. To better track program cost, it is a

proven practice to align the WBS elements used for the IGS and

LCCE. The WBS may be based on either MIL-STD-881 or the

DHS WBS format.

[3] Initiate and fund the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE);

Note: The ICE is a life cycle cost estimate developed

“independently” from the influence, supervision, direction,

advocacy, or control of the PEO or Sponsor. The ICE, based on the

CAE’s preferred solution determination, is normally only

conducted once during the acquisition life cycle in support of the

ADE-2A decision.

[4] Initiate and fund the PMO cost estimate; and,

Note: The PMO cost estimate is developed by the PM in

consultation with Commandant (CG-9283) based on the CAE’s

preferred solution determination.

2-34

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[5] Prepare the PLCCE.

(6) Integrated Government Schedule.

(a) Initiate and maintain the program Integrated Government Schedule

(IGS); and,

Note: See Chapter 5 and Reference (q), Integrated Government Schedule

(IGS) for more information related to IGS development and stakeholder

engagement. Contact the Commandant (CG-93) Technical Director for

the most up to date IGS Guidebook.

(b) Ensure the Contracting Officer’s timeline represented by the

Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT) is integrated into the

program’s IGS.

(7) Preliminary Acquisition Program Baseline (p-APB).

(a) Develop the p-APB; and,

Note: See Chapter 5 and the APB template instructions for guidance on

the completion of the p-APB and APB.

Note: The p-APB serves as the initial non-breachable program baseline.

(b) Contact Commandant (CG-924) to initiate the Independent Verification

and Validation (IV&V) review process for the p-APB (See Chapter 5 for

more information on the APB IV&V Process).

(8) Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP), Program Input.

Note: RFP Release requires ADE-2A completion. All preparation for RFP

release may be completed prior to ADE-2A to include Systems Definition

Review (SDR) to establish the functional baseline.

(a) Define the RFP program input submission date in the IGS.

Note: The solicitation (RFP) program input submission date is the date

that the program submits to the Contracting Officer the final versions of

the Specification, CDRL, Statement of Work and Draft Contract

sections. This final submission from the program normally initiates the

Contracting Officers review and release timeline.

(b) Complete the SDR with a defined Functional Baseline and technical

agreement on the final versions of the Specification, CDRL, Statement of

Work and Draft Contract sections (See Chapter 3 for more information

on SDR);

Note: For additional information on SOW and specification

development, see Chapter 5.

(c) Implement the Red Team in accordance with Reference (o);

2-35

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: Coordinate Red Team funding estimates with Commandant (CG-

924).

(d) Provide to the Contracting Officer, the post SDR final version of the

Specification, CDRL, Statement of Work and draft contract sections;

and,

Note: If there are changes to the final package after delivery to the

Contracting Officer, it will impact the PALT and the PM’s anticipated

IGS contract award date.

(e) For major acquisition RFPs (excluding support service contracts),

coordinate a RFP review with Commandants (CG-9) and (CG-93) prior

to RFP release (See Chapter 5 for more information on Major

Acquisition RFP Reviews).

(f) For more information on the procurement process steps, go to the

Commandant (CG-91) CG portal site “USCG Acquisition Road Map

(ARM)” at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

(9) Logistics Management.

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by the

Office of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(a) Recommend contacting Commandant (CG-444) for guidance on

application of CG logistics policy to align to the program’s execution

plans;

(b) Charter the program Integrated Logistics Support Management Team

(ILSMT), as required (in accordance with paragraph D.3.e(2));

Note: A proven practice is to identify logistics element managers

(LEMs) in the ILSMT charter; for more information on the ILSMT

charter, see Reference (h).

(c) Reference (h) emphasized logistics planning includes:

Note: Refer to the p-ILSP template instructions for guidance on the

completion of the p-ILSP.

[1] Planning to conduct Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs)

and Logistics Readiness Reviews (LRRs); and,

Note: In accordance with Reference (h), plan to conduct ILAs after

Critical Design Review (CDR) and before the Production

Readiness Review (PRR).

2-36

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[2] Development of the Logistics Resource Funding Plan (LRFP),

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages

(DMSMS) plan and Technical Data Plan (TDP).

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-444) for information on

documenting Reference (h) planning requirements.

(d) Support the LCCE, ICE, and AA development teams with logistics

management information;

(e) Ensure incorporation of the logistics planning elements into the Draft

SOW, Draft Specification, and Draft CDRLs; and,

(f) PM’s should coordinate with the APO for logistics planning.

Technical Management Activities are found on the next page.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-37

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-11: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process

(10) Technical Management:

Note: This technical management section describes alignment of technical

functional areas.

(a) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Activities Include:

[1] Prior to SPR, contact Commandant (CG-926) for guidance to

address pre TEMP initial T&E planning;

[2] Designate a T&E Manager certified in the test and evaluation

career field in accordance with Reference (e);

[3] Charter a T&E IPT, as required in accordance with paragraph

D.3.e(2)), to serve as the primary test management planning forum.

Membership should include representatives from the following:

[a] Sponsor/Sponsor’s Representative;

[b] Commandant (CG-926);

[c] Independent Test Agent (ITA) (formerly OTA);

[d] Operational Test Director (OTD); and,

[e] Technical Authorities.

[4] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-926) to nominate an ITA

(formerly OTA) for Sponsor concurrence, Commandant (CG-9)

2-38

COMDTINST M5000.10G

approval, and DHS Director, Office of Test & Evaluation

(DOT&E) approval;

Note: DHS has replaced the term Operational Test Agent (OTA)

with the term Independent Test Agent (ITA). ITA and OTA are

synonymous. Operational Test Director (OTD) is the designated

lead for the planning, execution, and reporting for a particular

Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) activity. The OTD is

typically a member from the ITA.

[5] Start T&E planning and begin developing the TEMP in

coordination with the T&E IPT;

[6] Conduct a T&E Strategy brief to DOT&E a minimum of 90

calendar days prior to the submission of the program’s TEMP to

DHS DOT&E for review and approval; and,

Note: It is a proven practice to present the T&E Strategy brief to

DOT&E prior to the initiation of CG signature routing.

[7] Coordinate with ITA, Commandant (CG-926) and the Sponsor to

provide a T&E Strategy Brief to DHS DOT&E prior to TEMP

submission (as requested).

(b) Prior to SPR, identify Rehabilitation Act, Section 508 compliance

requirements;

Note: For additional information and guidance on Section 508

compliance, contact Commandant (CG-61) Section 508 Program

Management Team at Section.508@uscg.mil.

(c) Enterprise Architecture (EA) Activities Include:

Note: For EA requirements and best practices, see Reference (r),

specifically the Practice Manual/Volumes, also located at the

Commandant (CG-671) CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg66/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Prac

tice/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

[1] Prior to SPR, contact the Chief Architect technical staff

(Commandant (CG-671)) to develop a program specific EA

compliance plan; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-671) via email at HQS-DG-lst-

CG-671@uscg.mil.

[2] Prepare for the Pre-ADE-2A CG-EAB (or DHS EAB as

applicable) reviews in accordance with the EA compliance plan.

2-39

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(d) Program Protection/Cybersecurity Activities Include:

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and guidance on Program

Protection and Cybersecurity.

[1] Prior to SPR, Contact Commandant (CG-2) to develop a program

specific Threat analysis and engagement strategy;

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-2) via email at HQS-DG-LST-

CG-2-AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil.

[2] Prior to SPR, Contact Commandant (CG-93) Director of

Cybersecurity Staff to initiate Program Protection/Cybersecurity

program alignment;

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-

DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and

if directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS

Information Safeguarding & Risk Management Council

(ISRSMC).

[3] Charter the Program Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management

(P-CARM) IPT separately or as a function of the program IPT;

Note: See Chapter 5 for P-CARM recommended membership and

functions.

[4] Prior to SPR, ensure completion of a program security review;

Note: This is still a maturing process, for assistance contact

DCMS-34 via email at HQS-SMB-DCMS-34-

SecurityReviews@uscg.mil.

Note: All programs must adhere to the security policies

promulgated by DCMS-34. (Operations Security, Information

Security, Physical Security, Personnel Security, Industrial Security,

and Anti-Terror/Force Protection). These policies are found on

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/dcms34/SitePages/Home.aspx.

[5] Ensure cybersecurity mitigation considerations are included in

acquisition documentation to include the PSTP, P-APB, TEMP

ORD, ILSP, LCCE, and staffing plans and requirements;

[6] Initiate Step 1 of RMF: Categorize System;

[7] Update/develop the System Security Plan (SSP);

[8] Update the system Risk Assessment Report (RAR);

2-40

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[9] Prepare the Program Protection Plan (PPP) to include Critical

Program Information (CPI) and Criticality analysis; and,

Note: The PPP template and USCG Program Protection Plan

Navigation Guide 1.0 have additional guidance found on the

Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

[10] Prepare the Acquisition Cybersecurity Plan (ACSP).

(e) Human Systems Integration Activities Include:

[1] Prior to SPR, contact Commandant (CG-1B3) to align specific

Human Systems Integration (HSI) requirements and standards into

the program’s CONOPS, P-ORD, ORD and all applicable plans

and documents required for ADE-2A approval (e.g., p-ILSP,

SELC, TEMP);

[2] Designate, in writing, a Principal for Safety in accordance with

Reference (p);

[3] Support Commandant (CG-1B3) in the development and

coordination of the:

Note: See Table 8-3 for additional preparation and approval

information.

[a] Human Systems Integration Management Plan (HSIMP);

[b] Manpower Estimate Report (MER);

[c] System Safety Management Plan (SSMP);

[d] Human Factors Engineering Plan (HFEP); and,

[e] Human Performance Support and Training (HPS&T)

Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and

Evaluation Plans.

[4] Ensure the use of HSI analysis for AASP development and

AA/AoA execution;

[5] Incorporate HSI and training requirements into the CEBD and the

program’s LCCE work breakdown structure;

[6] Ensure the draft RFP and final solicitation include the requirement

for the contractor to align to the program’s HSI, HFE, HPS&T and

System Safety Program Plans; and,

[7] Execute/support additional tasks (e.g., models, mockups, and

related activities) as identified by Commandant (CG-1B3) to

conduct the necessary HSI analysis.

2-41

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(f) Environmental Compliance Activities Include:

[1] Prior to SPR, contact Commandant (CG-47) to develop a program

specific environmental compliance strategy to be documented in a

memorandum from the Coast Guard Deputy Warranting Officer

for all environmental management and compliance issues; and,

Note: Reference (s) describes environmental planning policy.

Contact Commandant (CG-47) via email at HQS-SMB-CG-47-

PolicyReview@uscg.mil.

[2] Conduct Environmental Analysis.

(g) System Engineering Activities Include.

[1] Designate a Program Technical Lead (recommend a DHS certified

Senior (Level III) Systems Engineer);

[2] Establish a Systems Engineering/Technical Management IPT

(recommended) prior to SPR;

[3] Complete SPR;

[4] Complete SAR;

[5] Support the development of the Draft contract technical package

(e.g., Draft Specification, CDRLS, SOW, and contract sections);

and,

Note: For additional information on SOW and specification

development, see Chapter 5.

[6] Complete PPR

Note: See Chapter 3 for a description of System Engineering

activities.

4. Documentation: Analyze/Select Phase. MSAM documentation required for approval

during the Analyze/Select phase is presented in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-42

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

The ALF Document Alignment Chart is on the Next Page.

2-43

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-12: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch

CG-ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-44

COMDTINST M5000.10G

E. OBTAIN PHASE

Figure 2-13: Obtain Phase

1. Obtain Phase Overview

a. Scope. The Obtain Phase begins with an ADE-2A decision and culminates with a

successful ADE-3.

Note: The next three sections of the MSAM provide a more detailed description for

the preparation of each Obtain Phase ADE (ADE-2B, ADE-2C, and ADE-3).

b. Overall Obtain Phase Objectives

(1) Design, development, and test of the preferred alternative;

(2) Implement preliminary production efforts; Incremental Delivery or Low Rate

Initial Production (LRIP) to support operational testing and facilitate

continuous production;

(3) Define the technical (e.g., functional, allocated and product) baselines.

(4) Transitions from a p-APB (non-breachable) to a breachable APB signed by the

ADA. (See Chapter 5 of this Manual for more information on the program

APB);

(5) Program management transitions from program planning activities to post

contract award contractor execution oversight to ensure cost and schedule

goals are achieved; and,

(6) Maturation of acquisition program documentation based on fact-of-life

changes in requirements and available resources.

2. Obtain Phase Expected Outcome. Approval to enter into a full rate production contract

for the selected alternative and prepared to execute the Produce/Deploy/Support phase.

2-45

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

2-46

COMDTINST M5000.10G

F. PREPARATION FOR ADE-2B

Figure 2-14: Obtain Phase (ADE-2A-ADE-2B)

1. ADE-2A to ADE-2B Overview

a. Scope

(1) This portion of the Obtain Phase begins with a successful ADE-2A and

culminates with an ADE-2B.

(2) The primary purpose of the ADE-2B is to establish the program’s breachable

final acquisition program baseline (APB). The final APB is intended to include

information from the primary contact award and PDR to provide the

government a defined baseline with a high confidence in the cost, schedule and

performance elements.

(3) A program will normally have one ADE-2B to approve the program’s final

APB.

Note: The ADA may adapt (tailor) the ALF as needed to meet each program’s

unique oversight requirements.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Obtain Phase post-ADE-2A

through ADE-2B activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-

924) CG portal site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Overall ADE-2A to ADE-2B Phase Objectives Include

(1) If not already accomplished during the Analyze/Select Phase, deliver to the

Contracting Officer a fully integrated final solicitation (RFP) (“pens down”)

program input with final technical and programmatic information (e.g.,

specification, statement of work, CDRLs, and contract sections);

(2) Award the primary contract and transition to contract execution and

monitoring;

2-47

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Transition from a government defined operational and functional system

design to a contractor defined preliminary design and allocated baseline; and,

(4) Prepare to execute an efficient ADE-2B to ADE-2C portion of the Obtain

Phase. (or ADE-3 if ADE-2C is not used).

2. ADE-2B Definition (Approve the APB and Continue Obtain Phase Activities)

a. Entrance Criteria

(1) Completed acquisition documentation as required by Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

2B EOC review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be

scheduled until all required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM

uploaded into the DHS Data Source System and an electronic copy sent to

Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

Note: In accordance with Reference (c), service acquisitions may have tailored

documentation requirements for ADE-2B. Contact Commandant (CG-924) for

assistance.

(2) Updated plan for staffing of critical acquisition positions needed for the

remainder of the Obtain Phase and the Produce/Deploy/Support (P/D/S) Phase;

Note: The staffing plan is presented as part of the ADE brief. The ADE-2B

briefing template is found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(3) Completed preliminary design as documented through an approved SELC

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) completion letter (See Chapter 3 for more

information on PDR);

(4) Completed an EAB review;

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at

HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an EAB review and

determination if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review.

(5) For programs (IT and non-IT) with a planned ADE-2C as the next milestone,

verify quantity of LRIP units and limited deployments as documented in the

ADM; and,

(6) Completion of ADE-2A Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) action

items.

2-48

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. ADE-2B Expected Outcomes

Note: The DHS-ARB Acquisition Review Process (ARP) steps are detailed in

Chapter 7.

(1) CG ARB ADE-2B Outcomes.

(a) CG ARB concurrence that the program is prepared to proceed to the

DHS-ARB; and,

Note: Go to the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for the current

ADE briefing slide template. The Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site

is found at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(b) CAE authorization to proceed to DHS for ADE-2B.

(2) DHS ARB ADE-2B (or CAE as ADA) Review Outcomes.

(a) Authorization for the program to proceed past ADE-2B signifies:

[1] Satisfactory completion of the ADE-2B entrance criteria;

[2] The program is adequately resourced to execute the program plans

based on the CFO Certification of Funds Memo;

[3] The PM may proceed with planning and execution of contract

action(s) that support completion of the Obtain Phase activities;

[4] The program has established a preliminary design; and,

[5] Acknowledgement of program risk (programmatic, technical,

manufacturing, etc.).

(b) Approval of the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantity or limited

deployments (if applicable);

(c) Approval of the program baseline documented in the final APB to

include approval for any multiple discrete segments;

(d) Approval of ALF tailoring requested by the program;

(e) Approval of documents in accordance with Table 8-3;

(f) ADA specific direction for the next phase; and,

(g) ADA issuance of an ADM.

2-49

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. ADE-2A to ADE-2B Phase Activities

Figure 2-15: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(2) Member of the program IPT;

(3) Support the SELC Review approval process as explained in Chapter 3;

(4) Plan the follow-on sustainment Resource Proposal (RP); and,

(5) Update the requirements documents (e.g., ORD) as necessary to align to

funding and execution realities. Brief any ORD changes to the EOC.

Note: ORD changes should be identified and processed in accordance with

Reference (f).

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative Activities Include:

(1) Assist in alignment of resource requirements to the PPBE process;

(2) Member of the program IPT;

(3) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation; and,

(4) Coordinate the Commandant (CG-8) Certification of Funding memo.

2-50

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: In addition to ETA, Commandant CG-2 is designated by the Commandant as

Technical Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(3) Support the execution of Technical Management activities as defined in

section 3.e.(7) below; and,

(4) Support the SELC Review approval process. See Chapter 3 for more

information.

d. Contracting Officer Activities Include:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks (e.g., Procurement Request (PR) package,

Procurement Administrative Lead Timeline (PALT), etc.) with estimated lead

times into the Program’s Integrated Government Schedule (IGS);

Note: An acquisition program has one schedule referred to as the Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS). The assigned Contracting Officer and Program

Manager share responsibility to ensure that the contracting tasks are always

accurately represented/updated in the IGS. See Chapter 5 for more information

on the IGS.

Note: The contracting activities for the solicitation (RFP release) through

contract award date are always on the program’s IGS critical path.

(2) Coordinate, with the PM, a recommended procurement request package “pens

down” submission date to meet the PM’s planned IGS contract award date

(e.g., Specification, CDRLs, Statement of Work (SOW) and contract sections);

(3) Keep the PM informed of actual or potential changes to the PALT;

(4) Implement the Red Team in accordance with Reference (o);

Note: Coordinate Red Team funding estimates with Commandant (CG-924).

(5) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(6) Transition to contract execution oversight; and,

2-51

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(7) For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91)

CG portal site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For

the procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition

Road Map (ARM) at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

e. Program Manager Activities Include:

(1) General programmatic activities include:

(a) Ensure completion of documentation listed on Table 8-3, Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

(b) Conduct Commandant (CG-9) AER in accordance with Reference (n)

(e.g., AA, SAR, contract sections (spec/SOW, section L&M, etc.), PDR,

LCCE, etc.);

(c) Define the LRIP quantities to be approved at ADE-2B;

(d) Conduct risk management and risk reviews in accordance with Risk

Management Plan (RMP);

(e) Conduct an Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) if required; and,

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information on the IBR.

(f) Update the LCCE as required;

[1] For a LCCE to support an ADE, to initiate update planning contact

Commandant (CG-9283) at least 17 months prior to the ADE or in

accordance with the Commandant (CG-9283) program engagement

plan; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-9283) at HQS-DG-

CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

[2] For an annual update, to initiate update planning Contact

Commandant (CG-9283) at least six months prior to the planned

EOC annual brief.

Note: If the timing for a LCCE annual update and a LCCE ADE

update coincide, the LCCE ADE update takes precedence.

(2) Integrated Product Teams (IPT).

(a) Add or adjust scope and focus of program IPTs to implement activities

as needed. See Table 2-5 for a list of required program IPT functions;

and,

(b) See the Commandant (CG-93) IPT Guidebook for guidance to

implement and manage IPTs.

2-52

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Integrated Government Schedule (IGS).

(a) Maintain the program IGS in accordance with Reference (q); and,

(b) The Contracting Officer’s timeline represented by the Procurement

Administrative Lead Time (PALT) must always be accurately

represented in the IGS.

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(4) Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP), Program Input (if not already

completed in the A/S phase),

(a) Define the RFP program input submission date in the IGS;

Note: The solicitation (RFP) program input submission date is the date

that the program submits to the Contracting Officer the final versions of

the Specification, CDRL, Statement of Work and Draft Contract

sections. This final submission by the program initiates the Procurement

Administrative Lead Time (PALT).

(b) Complete the Systems Definition Review (SDR) with a defined

Functional Baseline and technical agreement on the final versions of the

Specification, CDRL, Statement of Work and Draft Contract sections

(See Chapter 3 for more information on SDR);

Note: For additional information on SOW and specification

development, see Chapter 5.

(c) Provide to the Contracting Officer, the post SDR final “pens down” version of the Specification, CDRL, Statement of Work and Draft

Contract sections; and,

Note: If there are changes to the final package after delivery to the

Contracting Officer it will impact the PALT and the PM’s anticipated

IGS contract date.

(d) For more information on the procurement process steps, go to the

Commandant (CG-91) CG portal site “USCG Acquisition Road Map

(ARM) at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

(5) Final Acquisition Program Baseline (APB).

(a) The final APB establishes the program baseline with parameters derived

from the LCCE, ORD, and IGS (See Chapter 5 for more information on

the APB);

(b) Prior to final signature routing, contact Commandant (CG-924) to initiate

an Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) review process;

Note: The final APB five day Commandant (CG-924) IV&V process

includes a four day DHS PARM review.

2-53

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: It is a proven practice to provide Commandant (CG-924) a draft

final APB early to accommodate source document/APB discrepancies

prior to final IV&V review.

(c) The final APB once approved by the DHS ADA is breachable and

subject to breach notification policy; and,

(d) Refer to Chapter 5 for guidance on APB breach policy.

Note: Notify Commandant (CG-924) at the earliest opportunity if a

breach is anticipated.

(6) Logistics Management Activities Include:

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by Office

of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(a) Recommend contacting Commandant (CG-444) for guidance on

application of CG logistics policy to align to the program’s execution

plans;

(b) Ensure the membership and designation of Logistics Element Managers

(LEMs) of the program are current in the Integrated Logistics Support

Management Team (ILSMT) charter;

(c) Support the program LCCE team with logistics management

information;

(d) Ensure ILSMT alignment to the logistics requirements for the

SOW/CDRLs; and

(e) Update the p-ILSP to the final ILSP for ADA approval to support the

ADE-2B decision.

(f) PM’s should coordinate with the APO for logistics planning:

(g) Reference (h) emphasized logistics planning includes:

Note: Refer to the ILSP template instructions for guidance on the

completion of the ILSP.

[1] Planning to conduct Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs)

and Logistics Readiness Reviews (LRRs); and,

Note: In accordance with Reference (h), plan to conduct ILAs after

Critical Design Review (CDR) and before the Production

Readiness Review (PRR).

2-54

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[2] Development of the Logistics Resource Funding Plan (LRFP),

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages

(DMSMS) plan and Technical Data Plan (TDP).

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-444) for information on

documenting Reference (h) planning requirements.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-55

COMDTINST M5000.10G

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 2-16: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process

(7) Technical Management:

Note: This technical management section describes alignment of technical

functional areas which require extra emphasis during acquisition program

planning and execution.

(a) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Activities Include:

[1] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-926) staff to review required

T&E activities and artifacts to support systems engineering

reviews (e.g., SDR, PDR) and ADE-2B in accordance with the

TEMP;

[2] Support the T&E IPT in updating the TEMP, drafting the

developmental test plans, and preparing the Early Operational

Assessment (EOA) Plan (if the EOA was approved in the TEMP at

ADE-2A);

[3] Ensure interdependent program test plans and testing are aligned to

the TEMP and test plans; and,

[4] Coordinate with system/asset providers to plan and program

specific testing, combined and interoperability testing with the

receiving program PMs and T&E IPTs for Developmental Test &

Evaluation (DT&E) and OT&E execution and reporting.

2-56

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(b) Enterprise Architecture (EA) Activities include:

Note: For EA requirements and best practices see Reference (r) found at

the Commandant (CG-671) CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg66/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Prac

tice/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

[1] Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-

671)) to update a program specific EA compliance plan; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-671) via email at HQS-DG-lst-

CG-671@uscg.mil.

[2] Coordinate with the Chief Architect technical staff to execute

required EA activities and artifacts in accordance with the EA

compliance memo to support SDR, PDR and ADE-2B.

(c) Program Protection/Cybersecurity Activities Include:

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and guidance on Program

Protection and Cybersecurity.

[1] Contact Commandant (CG-2) to update the program specific

Threat analysis and engagement strategy. Contact Commandant

(CG-2) via email at HQS-DG-LST-CG-2-

AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil;

[2] Contact the Commandant (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff

to review Program Protection/Cybersecurity program alignment;

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-

DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and

if directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS

Information Safeguarding & Risk Management Council

(ISRSMC).

[3] Ensure completion of a program security review;

Note: This is still a maturing process, for assistance contact

DCMS-34 via email at HQS-SMB-DCMS-34-

SecurityReviews@uscg.mil.

Note: All program must adhere to the security policies

promulgated by DCMS-34. (Operations Security, Information

Security, Physical Security, Personnel Security, Industrial Security,

and Anti-Terror/Force Protection). These policies are found at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/dcms34/SitePages/Home.aspx.

2-57

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(d)

(e)

(f)

[4] Incorporate PP/Cyber requirements into the RFP (e.g., SOW,

specification, CDRLS);

[5] Update PPP analyses (e.g., CPI, criticality, threat, vulnerability,

risk) and list of countermeasures;

[6] Update System Security Plan (SSP) and Risk Assessment Report

(RAR); and,

[7] Obtain Interim Authority to Test (IATT) if applicable.

Human Systems Integration Activities Include:

[1] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-1B3) for support to integrate

HSI requirements and standards into operational requirements

updates and all applicable plans and documents required to support

ADE-2B (e.g., ILSP, SELC, TEMP, etc) or as directed by

Commandant (CG-1B3);

Note: See Table 8-3 for document preparation and approval

information.

[2] Ensure the draft RFP and final solicitation include the requirement

for the contractor to align to the program’s HSI, HFE, HPS&T and

System Safety Program Plans;

[3] Incorporate HSI and training requirements into the program’s

LCCE work breakdown structure; and,

[4] Execute/support additional tasks (e.g., models, mockups, and

related activities) as identified by Commandant (CG-1B3) to

conduct the necessary HSI analysis.

Environmental Compliance Activities Include:

[1] In accordance with Reference (s), implement (and update as

necessary) the Coast Guard Deputy Warranting officer signed

program specific environmental compliance strategy memo.

[2] For coordination of activities with Commandant (CG-47) contact

the Commandant (CG-47) environmental staff via email at HQS-

SMB-CG-47-PolicyReview@uscg.mil.

System Engineering Activities Include.

[1] Complete SDR; and,

Note: The Functional Baseline is established at SDR. SDR is

required to finalize the design/build contract technical package

(e.g., Draft Specification, CDRLS, SOW, and contract sections).

[2] Complete PDR.

2-58

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: The Allocated Baseline is established at PDR.

See Chapter 3 for a description of System Engineering activities.

4. Documentation: Obtain Phase Through ADE-2B. MSAM documentation required for

approval during the Analyze/Select phase is presented in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation.

Note: PMs must plan to initiate documentation in time to allow final Coast Guard approval

of the documents prior to the EOC brief in preparation for the ADE. Consult Commandant

(CG-924) for assistance in ADE document planning and timelines.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-59

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-17: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch

CG-ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-60

COMDTINST M5000.10G

G. PREPARATION FOR ADE-2C

Figure 2-18: Obtain Phase (ADE-2B-ADE-2C)

1. ADE-2B to ADE-2C Overview

a. Scope. This portion of the Obtain Phase begins with a successful ADE-2B and

culminates with an ADE-2C.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Obtain Phase post-ADE-2A through

ADE-2B activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Overall ADE-2B to ADE-2C Phase Objectives Include:

(1) Mature the design to establish a Product Baseline approved at CDR;

Note: See Chapter 3 for more information on Product Baselines and CDR).

(2) Contractor is prepared to initiate low rate production or incremental delivery;

(3) Build technical knowledge through developmental testing of system

components and subsystems necessary to prove the system design is testable,

producible, maintainable, and compliant with the defined specifications and

regulatory requirements; and,

(4) Achieve a successful ADE-2C decision, and be fully prepared to execute a

cost/schedule efficient preparation for ADE-3.

2. ADE-2C Definition (Approve Low Rate Production or Incremental Delivery).

a. ADE-2C Unique Circumstances:

(1) The routine use of ADE-2C is to approve limited deployment or Low Rate

Initial Production (LRIP) to support operational testing, ramp up production

capacity, and to allow limited continuous production.

2-61

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(2) The ADE-2C decision may be used for programs that are structured to deliver

capabilities in an incremental fashion where each delivery or release (or an

aggregate of deliveries/releases) constitutes deployable capability after

undergoing successful operational assessment;

(3) For shipbuilding programs where Acquisition Decision Event 2C (ADE-2C)

occurs within a year of ADE-2B:

Note: For more information see the ADA Acquisition Decision Memorandum

(ADM), dated 1 April 2021, Acquisition Life Cycle Framework Tailoring for

United States Coast Guard Cutter Acquisition Programs (WF# 1211871).

(a) ADE-2C will be held prior to commencing construction on the LRIP

assets (to include the lead ship);

Note: Based on actual dates, ADE-2B will not be extended unreasonably

beyond PDR to minimize the gap between ADE-2B and ADE-2C.

(b) The ADE-2C presentation slides may be adapted from the standard slide

deck to focus on design maturity, results of early operational assessment

(if applicable), production readiness, and sufficient program staffing;

and,

Note: Contact CG-924 for assistance adapting the presentation slides to

meet current DHS PARM requirements.

(c) The DHS approved acquisition program documentation, in accordance

with Reference (c), does not need resubmission unless required by ADM

or significant change in program status.

(4) For IT designated programs:

(a) When an ADE-2C is required by the ADA, the entrance requirements

must be defined by the ADE-2B ADM; and,

(b) When not required to complete an ADE-2C, the Coast Guard CAO (as

delegated) certifies each delivery or release with a memo to the

Executive Director, PARM in accordance with Reference (c).

Note: PMs may use the Major Milestone Completion Memorandum

template addressed to the CG-CAO for certification. The memo template

is found on Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx

2-62

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. ADE-2C Entrance Criteria

(1) Completed acquisition documentation as required by Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

2C EOC review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be

scheduled until all required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM

uploaded into the DHS Data Source System and an electronic copy sent to

Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

(2) Updated plan for staffing of critical acquisition positions needed for the

remainder of the Obtain Phase and the Produce/Deploy/Support (P/D/S) Phase;

Note: The staffing plan is presented as part of the ADE brief. The ADE-2C

briefing template is found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(3) A Letter of Assessment (LOA) signed by DHS DOT&E if an Operational

Assessment (OA) was completed to support the ADE-2C decision;

(4) Completed an EAB review.

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at

HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an EAB review and

determination if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review;

(5) CFO signed Certification of Funding memo; and,

(6) Completion of all Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) action items.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-63

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. ADE-2C Expected Outcomes

Note: The DHS-ARB Acquisition Review Process (ARP) steps are detailed in

Chapter 7.

(1) CG ARB ADE-2C:

(a) CG ARB concurrence that the program is prepared to proceed to the

DHS-ARB; and,

Note: Go to the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for the current

ADE briefing slide template. The Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site

is found at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(b) CAE authorization to proceed to DHS for ADE-2C.

(2) DHS ARB ADE-2C (or CAE as ADA) Review Outcomes:

(a) Authorization for the program to proceed past ADE-2C signifies:

[1] Satisfactory completion of the ADE-2C entrance criteria;

[2] The program is adequately resourced to execute the program plans

based on the CFO Certification of Funds Memo;

[3] The PM may proceed with planning and execution of contract

action(s) that support completion of the Obtain Phase activities;

and,

[4] Acknowledgement of program risk (programmatic, technical,

manufacturing, etc.).

(b) Approval of the program’s approach for limited deployment or LRIP to

support operational testing, production ramp up or allow limited

continuous production;

(c) Approval of ALF tailoring requested by the program;

(d) Approval of documents in accordance with Table 8-3;

(e) ADA specific direction for the next phase; and

(f) ADA issuance of an ADM.

2-64

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. ADE-2B to ADE-2C Activities

Figure 2-19: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(2) Member of the Program IPT;

(3) Support the execution of Technical Management activities as defined in

section 3.e.(4) below;

(4) Develop the follow-on sustainment RP; and,

(5) Update the requirements documents (e.g., ORD) as necessary to align to

funding and execution realities; Brief any ORD changes to the EOC.

Note: ORD changes should be identified and processed in accordance with

Reference (f).

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative Activities Include:

(1) Assist in alignment of resource requirements to the PPBE process;

(2) Member of the Program IPT;

(3) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation; and,

(4) Coordinate the Commandant (CG-8) Certification of Funding memo.

2-65

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: In addition to ETA, Commandant CG-2 is designated by the Commandant as

Technical Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3,

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(3) Support the execution of Technical Management activities as defined in

section 3.e.(4) below; and,

(4) Support the SELC Review approval process. See Chapter 3 for more

information.

d. Contracting Officer Activities Include:

Note: If there are contracting actions that may be needed prior to ADE-2C the

following applies:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks into the Program’s Integrated Government

Schedule;

Note: An acquisition program has one schedule referred to as the Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS). The assigned Contracting Officer and Program

Manager must ensure that the Procurement Administrative Lead Time (PALT)

is in agreement with the IGS. See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(2) Provide the PM with a recommended submission date for the programmatic

contract information (e.g., Specification, CDRLs, Statement of Work (SOW)

and contract sections) to the Contracting Officer to meet the planned release

date of the solicitation (RFP) or contract options; and,

(3) For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91)

CG portal site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For

the procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition

Road Map (ARM) at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

e. Program Manager activities include:

(1) General Programmatic activities include:

(a) Add or adjust scope and focus of program IPTs to implement activities

as needed. See Table 2-5 on page 2-33 for a list of required program IPT

functions;

2-66

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(b) Ensure completion of documentation listed on Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

(c) Conduct risk management and execute risk reviews in accordance with

the Risk Management Plan (RMP) (see Reference (p));

(d) Conduct Commandant (CG -9) Acquisition Executive Reviews (AER) in

accordance with Reference (n) (e.g., AA, SAR, Contract Spec, PDR,

LCCE, etc.);

(e) Satisfy asset capitalization requirements for delivered assets;

(f) Update the LCCE as required; and,

[1] For a LCCE to support an ADE, to initiate LCCE update planning

contact Commandant (CG-9283) at least 17 months prior to the

ADE or in accordance with the Commandant (CG-9283) program

engagement plan;

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-9283) at HQS-DG-

CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

[2] For an annual update, to initiate update planning contact

Commandant (CG-9283) at least six months prior to the planned

EOC annual brief; and,

Note: If the timing for a LCCE annual update and a LCCE ADE update

coincide, the LCCE ADE update takes precedence.

(g) Synchronize contracting actions.

Note: For more information on procurement policy go to the

Commandant (CG-91) CG portal site at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For the

procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition

Road Map (ARM) at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

(2) Integrated Government Schedule (IGS).

(a) Maintain the program IGS in accordance with Reference (q); and,

(b) The Contracting Officer’s timeline represented by the Procurement

Administrative Lead Time (PALT) must always be accurately

represented in the IGS. The PM must negotiate an agreed to schedule.

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(3) Logistics Management Activities Include.

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

2-67

COMDTINST M5000.10G

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by Office

of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(a) Recommend contacting Commandant (CG-444) for guidance on

application of CG logistics policy to align to the program’s execution

plans;

(b) Ensure the membership and designation of logistics element managers

(LEMs) of the program are current in the Integrated Logistics Support

Management Team (ILSMT) charter;

(c) Monitor deployment/execution of logistics elements in preparation for

upcoming system testing and deployment;

(d) Continue to improve logistics alignment and update the ILSP as needed

in coordination with the ILSMT;

(e) Support the program LCCE update team with logistics management

information;

(f) PM’s should coordinate with the APO for logistics planning; and,

(g) Reference (h) emphasized logistics planning includes:

Note: Refer to the ILSP template instructions for guidance on the update

of the ILSP.

[1] Planning to conduct Independent Logistics Assessments (ILAs)

and Logistics Readiness Reviews (LRRs); and,

Note: In accordance with Reference (h), plan to conduct ILAs after

Critical Design Review (CDR) and before the Production

Readiness Review (PRR).

[2] Development of the Logistics Resource Funding Plan (LRFP),

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages

(DMSMS) plan and Technical Data Plan (TDP).

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-444) for information on

documenting Reference (h) planning requirements.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-68

COMDTINST M5000.10G

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and

Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 2-20: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process

(4) Technical Management activities include:

Note: This technical management section describes alignment of technical

functional areas which require extra emphasis during acquisition program

planning and execution.

(a) Test and Evaluation (T&E) Activities:

[1] Coordinate with the Commandant (CG-926) staff to review

required T&E activities and artifacts to support systems

engineering reviews (e.g., CDR, IPRR, IRR, DTRR LPRR) ,

Operational Assessment (if required) and ADE-2C in accordance

with the TEMP;

[2] Support the T&E IPT in updating the TEMP for ADE-2C;

[3] Ensure interdependent program test plans and testing are aligned to

the TEMP and test plans;

Note: Systems and products provided by other programs for

operational use must be operationally tested with the receiving

asset/system.

[4] With the T&E IPT, oversee DT&E (including Cybersecurity

testing) and prepare DT&E report;

[5] Support the T&E IPT and ITA/OTD in preparing the Operational

Assessment Plan (OAP) and Operational Test Plans (OTP);

2-69

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(b)

(c)

[6] With ITA (formerly OTA), execute Early Operational Assessments

(EOAs) around CDR and Operational Assessments (OAs) (if

required to support ADE-2C) around IRR/PRR-L; and,

[7] Support the ITA and the OTD in preparing reports for any EOAs

or OAs executed.

Enterprise Architecture (EA) Activities Include:

Note: For EA requirements and best practices, please refer to Reference

(r), specifically the Practice Manual/Volumes, also located at the

Commandant (CG-671) CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg66/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Prac

tice/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

[1] Completed an EAB review;

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant

(CG-671)) at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an

EAB review and determination if the program requires a DHS

OCIO and DHS EAB review.

[2] Coordinate with the Chief Architect technical staff to execute

required EA activities and artifacts in accordance with the EA

compliance plan to support systems engineering reviews (e.g.,

CDR, IRR, LPRR) and ADE-2C;

[3] To support CDR, finalize Physical System Architecture.

Program Protection/Cybersecurity Activities Include:

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and guidance on Program

Protection/Cybersecurity (PP/Cyber).

[1] Contact Commandant (CG-2) to update the program specific

Threat analysis and engagement strategy. Contact Commandant

(CG-2) via email at HQS-DG-LST-CG-2-

AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil;

[2] Contact the Commandant (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff

to review Program Protection/Cybersecurity program alignment;

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-

DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and

if directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS

Information Safeguarding & Risk Management Council

(ISRSMC).

2-70

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[3] Ensure completion of a program security review.

Note: This is still a maturing process, for assistance contact

DCMS-34 via email at HQS-SMB-DCMS-34-

SecurityReviews@uscg.mil.

Note: All program must adhere to the security policies

promulgated by DCMS-34. (Operations Security, Information

Security, Physical Security, Personnel Security, Industrial Security,

and Anti-Terror/Force Protection). These policies are found on

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/dcms34/SitePages/Home.aspx.

[4] Update System Security Plan (SSP) and Risk Assessment Report

(RAR);

[5] Conduct Adversarial Cybersecurity DT&E (as required);

[6] Initiate Cooperative Vulnerability & Penetration Assessment

(CVPA) as applicable;

[7] Obtain Interim Authority To Test (IATT) or Authority to Operate

(ATO) and Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) as

applicable;

[8] Update PPP analyses (e.g., CPI, criticality, threat, vulnerability,

risk), list of countermeasures; and,

[9] Update PPP and ACSP.

(d) Human Systems Integration Activities Include:

[1] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-1B3) for support to update HSI

requirements and standards in operational requirements and all

applicable plans and documents required to support ADE-2C or as

directed by Commandant (CG-1B3); and,

Note: See Table 8-3 for document preparation and approval

information.

[2] Engage Commandant (CG-1B3) to:

[a] Reassess and validate long lead-time, high-dollar training

aids and facilities and update HSI and training requirements

in the program’s LCCE work breakdown structure;

[b] Provide system safety and occupational health inputs to

Systems Engineering Technical Reviews;

[c] Support test and evaluation and Operational Assessment

activities for validation and verification of human

performance and safety requirements including assessment

2-71

COMDTINST M5000.10G

of results for HFE developmental and iterative development

tests;

[d] Execute/support additional tasks (e.g., models, mockups, and

related activities) as identified by Commandant (CG-1B3) to

conduct the necessary HSI analysis.

(e) Environmental Compliance Activities Include:

[1] Implement (and update as necessary) the program specific

environmental compliance strategy coordinated with Commandant

(CG-47) and documented in a memorandum from the Coast Guard

Deputy Warranting officer for all environmental management and

compliance issues; and,

[2] Contact Commandant (CG-47). Contact Commandant (CG-47) via

email: HQS-SMB-CG-47-PolicyReview@uscg.mil.

(f) System Engineering Activities Include:

[1] Complete the CDR;

Note: The Product Baseline is established at CDR.

[2] Complete the IPRR, IRR, DTRR as required by the SELC PSTP;

and,

[3] Complete the PRR for LRIP.

See Chapter 3 for a description of System Engineering activities.

4. Documentation: Obtain Phase Through ADE-2C. MSAM documentation required for

approval during the Obtain Phase is presented in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation.

Note: PMs must plan to initiate documentation in time to allow final Coast Guard approval

of the documents prior to the EOC brief in preparation for the ADE. Consult Commandant

(CG-924) for assistance in ADE document planning and timelines.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-72

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

See the ALF Document Alignment Chart on the following Page.

2-73

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-21: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch

CG-ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-74

COMDTINST M5000.10G

H. PREPARATION FOR ADE-3

Figure 2-22: Obtain Phase

1. ADE-2C to ADE-3 Overview

a. Scope: This portion of the Obtain Phase begins with a successful ADE-2C (or 2B if

2C was not used) and culminates with an ADE-3.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Obtain Phase post-ADE-2C through

ADE-3 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Overall ADE-2C to ADE-3 Phase Objectives

(1) Achieve a successful ADE-3 decision prepared to execute a cost/schedule

efficient Produce/Deploy/Support Phase to deliver a fully integrated product

which meets the Sponsor’s operational requirements;

(2) Produce adequate LRIP production representative articles to support on time

execution of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) or incremental

delivery;

(3) Ensure operational requirements documents and acquisition documentation

reflect technical, cost, and production realities in preparation for full rate

production;

(4) Execute the program’s production contract and supporting contracts as needed;

and,

(5) Prepare system, users and support equipment for the intended use of the new

system.

2-75

COMDTINST M5000.10G

2. ADE-3 Definition (Produce and Deploy Program Assets/Systems).

a. Entrance Criteria

(1) Completed acquisition documentation as required by Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

3 EOC review. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be

scheduled until all required approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM

uploaded into the DHS Data Source System and an electronic copy sent to

Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

(2) Completed an EAB review.

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at

HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an EAB review and

determination if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review;

(3) Updated plan for staffing of critical acquisition positions needed for the

remainder of the Obtain Phase and the Produce/Deploy/Support (P/D/S) Phase;

Note: The staffing plan is presented as part of the ADE brief. The ADE-3

briefing template is found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx

(4) Completed Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) to include Cybersecurity

Testing, DHS DOT&E Letter of Assessment (LOA), plan to remediate

KPP/Critical Operational Issue (COI)/Test Failure discrepancies or incomplete

tests (if required); and,

(5) Develop a schedule for Follow-on Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) (if required).

b. ADE-3 Expected Outcomes

Note: The DHS-ARB Acquisition Review Process (ARP) steps are detailed in

Chapter 7.

(1) CG ARB ADE-3 Outcomes:

(a) CG ARB concurrence that the program is prepared to proceed to the

DHS-ARB; and,

Note: Go to the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for the current

ADE briefing slide template. The Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site

is found at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(b) CAE authorization to proceed to DHS for ADE-3.

(2) DHS ARB ADE-3 (or CAE as ADA) Review Outcomes:

(a) Authorization for the program to proceed past ADE-3 signifies:

2-76

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[1] Satisfactory completion of the ADE-3 entrance criteria;

[2] The program is adequately resourced to execute the program plans

based on the CFO Certification of Funds Memo;

[3] The program is prepared to produce, deploy and support the asset

based on successful test and evaluation reports, production

readiness reviews and sustainment reviews;

[4] The PM may proceed with planning and execution of contract

action(s) that support completion of the Obtain Phase activities;

and,

[5] Acknowledgement of program risk (Programmatic, Technical,

manufacturing, etc.).

(b) Approval of ALF tailoring requested by the program;

(c) Approval of documents in accordance with Table 8-3;

(d) ADA specific direction for the next phase; and,

(e) ADA issuance of an ADM.

3. ADE-2C to ADE-3 Activities

Figure 2-23: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(2) Member of the program IPT;

(3) Support the SELC Review approval process as explained in Chapter 3;

2-77

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(4) Plan the follow-on sustainment Resource Proposals (RP);

(5) Conduct the Systems Engineering Post Implementation Review (SE PIR) 12-

18 months (6-12 for IT) after IOC.

Note: For more information on the SE PIR, see Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and the

Commandant (CG-924) CG portal page at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(6) Execute an annual Operational Analysis (OA) for operational assets; and,

Note: Operational Analysis (OA) should not be confused with the OT&E event

titled “Operational Assessment” (OA) conducted by an Independent

(operational) Test Agency (ITA) prior to ADE-2C as defined in Reference (e).

(7) Update the requirements documents (e.g., ORD) as necessary to align to

funding and execution realities; Brief any ORD changes to the EOC.

Note: ORD changes should be identified and processed in accordance with

Reference (f).

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative Activities Include:

(1) Assist in alignment of resource requirements to the PPBE process;

(2) Member of the program IPT;

(3) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation; and,

(4) Coordinate the Commandant (CG-8) Certification of Funding memo.

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: In addition to ETA, Commandant CG-2 is designated by the Commandant as

Technical Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in the completion of documentation as defined in Table 8-3

Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation;

(3) Support the execution of Technical Management activities as defined in

section 3.e.(4) below; and,

(4) Support the SELC Review approval process. See Chapter 3 for more

information.

2-78

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Contracting Officer Activities Include:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks into the Program’s Integrated Government

Schedule; and,

Note: An acquisition program has one schedule referred to as the Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS). The assigned Contracting Officer and Program

Manager must ensure that the PALT and IGS are in agreement. See Chapter 5

for more information on the IGS.

(2) Provide the PM with a recommended submission date for the programmatic

contract information (e.g., Specification, CDRLs, Statement of Work (SOW)

and contract sections) to the Contracting Officer to meet the planned Release

date of the solicitation (RFP).

Note: For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant

(CG-91) CG portal site at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx. For the procurement

process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition Road Map (ARM)

at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

e. Program Manager Activities Include:

(1) General Programmatic Activities Include:

(a) Add or adjust scope and focus of program IPTs to implement activities

as needed. See Table 2-5 on page 2-33 for a list of required program IPT

functions;

(b) Conduct risk management and execute risk reviews in accordance with

Risk Management Plan (RMP) in accordance with Reference (p);

(c) Ensure completion of documentation listed on Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

(d) Conduct Commandant (CG-9) AER in accordance with Reference (n)

(e.g., ORR/PRR-F, LCCE, etc.);

(e) Satisfy asset capitalization requirements for delivered assets;

(f) For information on the procurement process steps, go to the

Commandant (CG-91) CG portal site “USCG Acquisition Road Map

(ARM) at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

(g) Prepare memorandums for any Program Capability Milestones achieved.

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on Memorandums for

Program Capability Milestones

[1] Update the LCCE as required;

2-79

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[a] For a LCCE to support an ADE, to initiate update planning

contact Commandant (CG-9283) at least 17 months prior to

the ADE or in accordance with the Commandant (CG-9283)

program engagement plan; and,

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-9283) at HQS-DG-

CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

[b] For an annual update, to initiate update planning, contact

Commandant (CG-9283) at least six months prior to the

planned EOC annual brief.

Note: If the timing for a LCCE annual update and a LCCE

ADE update coincide, the LCCE ADE update takes

precedence.

(2) Integrated Government Schedule (IGS).

(a) Ensure the IGS reflects the current program execution intent;

(b) Update IGS with key events schedule parameters required for the APB;

and,

(c) The Contracting Officer’s timeline represented by the Procurement

Administrative Lead Time (PALT) must always be accurately

represented in the IGS.

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on the IGS.

(3) Logistics Management Activities Include:

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by Office

of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(a) Recommend contacting Commandant (CG-444) for guidance on

application of CG logistics policy to align to the program’s execution

plans;

(b) Ensure the membership and designation of logistics element managers

(LEMs) of the program are current in the Integrated Logistics Support

Management Team (ILSMT) charter;

(c) Support the program LCCE update team with logistics management

information;

(d) Ensure ILSMT alignment to the logistics requirements for the

SOW/CDRLs;

(e) PM’s should coordinate with the APO for logistics planning; and,

2-80

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(f) Continue to improve logistics alignment and update the ILSP as needed

in coordination with the ILSMT.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-81

COMDTINST M5000.10G

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 2-24: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process

(4) Technical Management Activities Include:

Note: This technical management section describes alignment of technical

functional areas which require extra emphasis during acquisition program

planning and execution.

(a) Test and Evaluation activities:

Note: In accordance with Reference (a), safety concerns identified during

Developmental Test (DT) or OT, must be communicated as soon as

practicable (no later 30 days after test completion) to the PM and CAO.

Safety concerns that are expected to be uncorrected or unmitigated prior

to contract award date or delivery/task order issuance must be reported to

the appropriate congressional committee(s) at least 90 days prior to

award.

[1] Coordinate with the Commandant (CG-926) staff to review

required T&E activities and artifacts to support systems

engineering reviews (e.g., Operational Test Readiness Review

[OTRR], ORR/FPRR, PIR), OT&E and ADE-3 in accordance with

the TEMP;

[2] Support the ITA/OTD in conducting IOT&E (including

Cybersecurity testing);

[3] Ensure interdependent program test plans and testing are aligned to

the TEMP and test plans;

2-82

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[4] Coordinate with system/asset providers to plan and program

specific testing, combined and interoperability testing with the

receiving program PMs and T&E IPTs for DT&E and OT&E

execution and reporting; and,

[5] Review operational test reports and coordinate final reports with

DHS DOT&E.

(b) Enterprise Architecture Activities Include:

Note: For EA requirements and best practices, please refer to Reference

(r), specifically the Practice Manual/Volumes, also located at the CG-

671 CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg66/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Prac

tice/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

[1] Completed an EAB review;

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant

(CG-671)) at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an

EAB review and determination if the program requires a DHS

OCIO and DHS EAB review; and,

[2] Coordinate with the Chief Architect technical staff to execute

required EA activities and artifacts in accordance with the EA

compliance memo to support systems engineering reviews (e.g.,

IRR, FPRR, PIR) and ADE-3.

(c) Program Protection/Cybersecurity Activities Include:

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and guidance on Program

Protection and Cybersecurity.

[1] Contact Commandant (CG-2) to update the program specific

Threat analysis and engagement strategy. Contact Commandant

(CG-2) via email at HQS-DG-LST-CG-2-

AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil.

[2] To obtain or maintain a system ATO, contact the Commandant

(CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff to review Program

Protection/Cybersecurity program alignment; and,

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-

DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and

if directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS

Information Safeguarding & Risk Management Council

(ISRSMC).

2-83

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(d)

(e)

(f)

[3] Ensure completion of a program security review.

Note: This is still a maturing process, for assistance contact

DCMS-34 via email at HQS-SMB-DCMS-34-

SecurityReviews@uscg.mil.

Note: All program must adhere to the security policies

promulgated by DCMS-34. (Operations Security, Information

Security, Physical Security, Personnel Security, Industrial Security,

and Anti-Terror/Force Protection). These policies are found on

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/dcms34/SitePages/Home.aspx.

Human Systems Integration Activities Include:

[1] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-1B3) for support to update HSI

requirements and standards in operational requirements and all

applicable plans and documents required to support ADE-3 or as

directed by Commandant (CG-1B3); and,

Note: See Table 8-3 for document preparation and approval

information.

[2] Engage Commandant (CG-1B3) to:

[a] Ensure completion of the Manpower Requirements Analysis

(MRA) and Manpower Requirements Determination (MRD)

for Commandant (CG-1) approval;

[b] Validate long lead-time, high-dollar training aids and

facilities and update HSI and training requirements in the

program’s LCCE work breakdown structure;

[c] Perform operational usability assessments in preparation for

IOT&E or FOT&E;

[d] Facilitate the development of the HPS&T Plan for design,

development and execution of sustainment solutions;

[e] Execute/support additional tasks (e.g., models, mockups, and

related activities) as identified by Commandant (CG-1B3) to

conduct the necessary HSI analysis.

Environmental Compliance Activities Include:

Contact Commandant (CG-47) to update the program specific

environmental compliance strategy via email at HQS-SMB-CG-47-

PolicyReview@uscg.mil.

System Engineering Activities Include.

[1] Complete OTRR;

2-84

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[2] Complete ORR/PRR-F;

[3] Complete the SELC PIR 6 to 12 months after IOC; and,

[4] Update the Product Baseline as necessary to support an ORD

update.

Go to Chapter 3 for a description of System Engineering

activities.

4. Documentation: Obtain Phase through ADE-3. MSAM documentation required for

approval during the Obtain phase is presented in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation.

Note: PMs must plan to initiate documentation in time to allow final Coast Guard approval

of the documents prior to the EOC brief in preparation for the ADE. Consult Commandant

(CG-924) for assistance in ADE document planning and timelines.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-85

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-25: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch CG-

ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-86

COMDTINST M5000.10G

I. PRODUCE/DEPLOY AND SUPPORT PHASE (P/D/S)

Figure 2-26: Produce/Deploy and Support Phase (P/D/S)

1. P/D/S Overview

a. Scope. The P/D/S phase begins with a successful ADE-3. During P/D/S phase the

acquisition expands to full rate production, deploys the capability, achieves Full

Operating Capability (FOC), and ends the acquisition program at ADE-4 (USCG

only).

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Produce/Deploy and Support Phase

activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. P/D/S Objectives

(1) The contractor builds production capacity to meet the contracted delivery

schedule;

(2) Align the sustainment community to the support requirements (funding and

resources) ahead of operational asset delivery;

(3) Maintain functional alignment (e.g., logistics planning, risk analysis, etc.) as

the program continues to change over time; and,

(4) Execute a deliberate closure of programmatic activities in accordance with the

approved Program Transition Plan (PTP).

Note: ADE-4 (Transition to Sustainment/Acquisition Program Closure) is

detailed in the next section beginning on page 2-95.

2-87

COMDTINST M5000.10G

2. P/D/S Activities (P/D/S Phase and Preparation for ADE-4)

Figure 2-27: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in maintaining currency of the program documentation as

defined in Table 8-3;

(3) Coordinate FOT&E with the Independent Test Agent and the PM (See

Technical Management activities below);

(4) Update the sustainment Resource Proposal;

(5) In coordination with the PM, execute the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Post

Implementation Review (SELC PIR); and,

(6) Coordinate the annual Operational Analyses on behalf of Sponsor.

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative Activities Include:

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in maintaining currency of the program documentation as

defined in Table 8-3;

(3) Assist in alignment of resource requirements to the PPBE process; and,

(4) In coordination with Commandant (CG-928), reallocate any remaining

program funding in accordance with the PPBE process.

2-88

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and (CG-6) Representatives Activities

Include:

Note: The Flag Officer of the directorate (Commandants (CG-1) (CG-4) (CG-6)) is

the Engineering Technical Authority (ETA) for their respective areas of

responsibility.

Note: Commandant (CG-2) is designated by the Commandant as Technical

Authority for intelligence systems and capabilities, associated Sensitive

Compartmented Information (SCI) networks, communications and spaces.

(1) Member of the program IPT;

(2) Support the PM in maintaining currency of the program documentation as

defined in Table 8-3;

(3) Support execution of Technical Management activities defined in section

2.e.(4) below;

(4) Support the SELC Review approval process as explained in Chapter 3; and,

(5) Assist in the coordination of transition to sustainment of the acquired asset.

d. Contracting Activities Include:

(1) Integrate contracting tasks into the Program’s Integrated Government

Schedule;

Note: An acquisition program has one schedule referred to as the Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS). The assigned Contracting Officer and Program

Manager share responsibility to ensure that the contracting tasks are always

accurately represented/updated in the IGS. See Chapter 5 for more information

on the IGS.

(2) Exercise contract options as planned;

(3) Transition from contract administration to contract closeout; and,

(4) Consider transfer of sustainment contracts planned to continue post ADE-4 to

sustainment organizations (e.g., Aviation Logistics Center [ALC], Surface

Forces Logistics Center [SFLC]).

Note: For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant

(CG-91) CG portal site at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx; and the USCG

Acquisition Road Map (ARM) at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm9.aspx.

2-89

COMDTINST M5000.10G

e. Program Manager Activities Include:

(1) General Program Management Activities Include:

(a) Conduct risk management and risk reviews in accordance with Risk

Management Plan (RMP);

(b) Maintain currency of the program documentation as defined in Table 8-

3;

(c) In coordination with the Sponsor’s representative, execute the Systems

Engineering Life Cycle, Post Implementation Review (SELC PIR);

(d) Gain approval of the Program Transition Plan (PTP) 12 to 18 months

prior to the planned ADE-4 date;

(e) Submit program business reporting as directed by the DHS Master

Acquisition Oversight List (MAOL);

Note: IT programs have CPIC reporting requirements. The business case

and CPIC information are reported through the DHS data reporting

system.

(f) Complete an LCCE annual update as required. Contact Commandant

(CG-9283) at least six calendar months prior to the planned EOC annual

brief;

(g) Add or adjust scope and focus of program IPTs to implement activities

as needed. See Table 2-5 on page 2-33 for a list of required program IPT

functions;

(h) Support development of the sustainment RP; and,

(i) Prepare memorandums for any Program Capability Milestones achieved.

Note: See Chapter 5 for more information on Memorandums for

Program Capability Milestones.

(2) Integrated Government Schedule (IGS).

(a) Maintain the program IGS in accordance with Reference (q); and

(b) Represent the Contracting Officer’s Procurement Administrative Lead

Time (PALT) accurately in the IGS.

Note: See Chapter 5 and the Commandant (CG-93) IGS Guidebook for

more information related to IGS development and stakeholder

engagement. Contact the Commandant (CG-93) Technical Director for

the most up to date IGS Guidebook.

2-90

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Logistics Management Activities Include:

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by Office

of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(a) Recommend contacting Commandant (CG-444) for guidance on

application of CG logistics policy to align to the program’s execution

plans;

(b) Continue to improve the ILSP in coordination with the ILSMT in

preparation for the hand-off of the operational system to the Sustainment

Program Management;

(c) PM’s should coordinate with the APO for logistics planning; and,

(d) Complete the Logistics Readiness Review (LRR). PMs must ensure that

LRRs are initiated within six months after IOC in accordance with

Reference (h).

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 2-28: Major System Acquisition Life Cycle with SELC Process

(4) Technical Management:

Note: This technical management section describes alignment of technical

functional areas which require extra emphasis during acquisition program

planning and execution.

(a) Test and Evaluation Activities:

2-91

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(b)

(c)

[1] Coordinate with the Commandant (CG-926) staff to review

required T&E activities (e.g., FOT&E, trials and acceptance tests

upon delivery of each asset) in accordance with the TEMP; and,

[2] Ensure interdependent program test plans and testing are aligned to

the TEMP and test plans.

Enterprise Architecture Activities:

Note: For EA requirements and best practices, please refer to Reference

(r), specifically the Practice Manual/Volumes, also located at the CG-

671 CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg66/Enterprise%20Architecture%20Prac

tice/Forms/AllItems.aspx.

[1] Completed an EAB review;

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant

(CG-671)) at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an

EAB review and determination if the program requires a DHS

OCIO and DHS EAB review.

[2] Coordinate with the Chief Architect technical staff to execute

required EA activities and artifacts in accordance with the EA

compliance plan; and,

[3] Prepare for an ADE-4 CG-EAB.

Program Protection/Cybersecurity Activities:

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and guidance on Program

Protection and Cybersecurity.

[1] Contact Commandant (CG-2) to update the program specific

Threat analysis and engagement strategy. Contact Commandant

(CG-2) via email at HQS-DG-LST-CG-2-

AcquisitionSupport@uscg.mil;

[2] Review Program Protection/Cybersecurity program alignment,

contact the Commandant (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff;

Note: Contact (CG-93) Director of Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-

DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: Anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and

if directed, support the C-CARM engagement with the DHS

Information Safeguarding & Risk Management Council

(ISRSMC).

[3] Ensure completion of a program security review;

2-92

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: This is still a maturing process, for assistance contact

DCMS-34 via email at HQS-SMB-DCMS-34-

SecurityReviews@uscg.mil.

Note: All programs must adhere to the security policies

promulgated by DCMS-34. (Operations Security, Information

Security, Physical Security, Personnel Security, Industrial Security,

and Anti-Terror/Force Protection). These policies are found on

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/dcms34/SitePages/Home.aspx.

[4] Update PPP analyses (e.g., CPI, criticality, threat, vulnerability,

risk) and list of countermeasures;

[5] Update System Security Plan (SSP) and Risk Assessment Report

(RAR);

[6] Maintain the system’s ATO(s); and,

[7] Update PPP and ACSP.

(d) Human Systems Integration Activities Includes:

[1] Coordinate with Commandant (CG-1B3) for support to update HSI

requirements and standards in operational requirements and all

applicable plans and documents required to support ADE-3 or as

directed by Commandant (CG-1B3); and,

Note: See Table 8-3 for document preparation and approval

information.

[2] Engage Commandant (CG-1B3) to:

[a] Validate manpower, Human Performance Support and

Training (HPS&T), and habitability requirements meet

system needs to operate, maintain, support, and instruct the

system;

[b] Review and recommend engineering changes for HSI issues;

and,

[c] Perform operational usability assessments and provide

results and feedback.

(e) Environmental Compliance Activities include contacting Commandant

(CG-47) to update the program specific environmental compliance

memo via email at HQS-SMB-CG-47-PolicyReview@uscg.mil; and,

(f) System Engineering Activities Include:

[1] Complete SELC PIR if not completed prior to ADE-3; and,

[2] Complete FOT&E as required.

2-93

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Go to Chapter 3 for a description of System Engineering activities.

3. P/D/S Activity Documentation. Documentation required to be maintained during P/D/S is

defined in Table 8-3.

Note: PMs must have all ADE-4 documents signed prior to the ADE-4 EOC review. The

DCMS ADE-4 review will not be scheduled until all documents are signed. Consult

Commandant (CG-924) for assistance in ADE planning and preparation timelines.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-94

COMDTINST M5000.10G

J. PREPARATION FOR ADE-4

Figure 2-29: ADE-4 (Transition to Sustainment / Acquisition Program Closure)

1. ADE-4 Preparation Overview

a. Scope. The acquisition program ends with a successful ADE-4 (USCG only event)

during the Produce/Deploy and Support (P/D/S) Phase. At ADE-4 the acquired asset

is fully transitioned to the sustainment community.

Note: For a graphic overview, refer to CG-ALF Produce/Deploy and Support Phase

activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site:

Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Objective: Execute a deliberate closure of programmatic activities in accordance

with the approved Program Transition Plan (PTP).

2. ADE-4 Definition (P/D/S Transition to Sustainment/Program Closure).

Note: The Coast Guard-only ADE-4 (Closure of the Acquisition Program) may replace the

annual Coast Guard program review if the planned annual review is within the same

calendar quarter as the planned program ADE-4. If the ADE-4 is delayed then the program

must conduct their annual review and ADE-4 as separate reviews.

a. Entrance Criteria

(1) Program Transition Plan (PTP) elements complete;

Note: PTP must be approved in time to complete all program closure functions

prior to ADE-4 but no less than 12 months prior to ADE-4.

(2) All acquisition functions are complete or fully transitioned to Sustainment

Program Management;

2-95

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Completed an EAB review;

Note: Contact the Chief Architect technical staff (Commandant (CG-671)) at

HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil to coordinate an EAB review and

determination if the program requires a DHS OCIO and DHS EAB review.

(4) Contracts are closed or transitioned to sustainment contracting staffs;

(5) Completed acquisition documentation as required by Table 8-3 Acquisition

Life Cycle Documentation;

Note: Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE-

4 EOC review. ADE-4 will not be scheduled until all required approved

documents are transitioned to the sustainment PM and an electronic copy sent

to Commandant (CG-924), as directed.

(6) Addressed the ADE-4 briefing template tasks;

(7) Within the ADE-4 brief, document Commandant (CG-928) concurrence that

all program funding has been identified and remaining funding reallocated;

(8) The domain APEO is responsible to address post program closure

unanticipated acquisition actions (e.g., antecedent liability claim); and,

(9) The Sustainment Program Manager has accepted accountability for the

delivered asset.

b. ADE-4 Expected Outcomes Include

Note: For ADE-4, the ADA is DCMS. Refer to Table 2-2.

(1) DCMS ADA decision review confirms that the stakeholders agree that the

ADE-4 Entrance Criteria are complete;

(2) Cancellation of the Acquisition PM Charter signifying program closure; and,

(3) ADA issuance of an ADM.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-96

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. ADE-4 Preparation Activities

Figure 2-30: Management Interfaces

a. Sponsor’s Representative Activities Include:

(1) Update the sustainment Resource Proposal; and,

(2) Support the PM in program closure and transition of the asset to the

sustainment PM.

b. Commandant (CG-82) Representative’s Activities Include:

(1) Support the PM in program closure and transition of the asset to the

sustainment PM;

(2) Assist in alignment of resource requirements to the PPBE process; and,

(3) In coordination with Commandant (CG-928), ensure that any remaining

program funding is reallocated in accordance with the PPBE process.

c. Representatives for Commandants (CG-1), (CG-2), (CG-4), and (CG-6)

activities include:

(1) Support the PM in program closure and ensure transition of program functions

to sustainment PMs/Product Line Managers; and,

(2) Support the Sponsor’s annual Operational Analysis.

d. Contracting Activities Include:

(1) Confirm closure or transfer of sustainment contracts planned to continue post

ADE-4 to sustainment organizations (e.g., ALC, SFLC); and,

(2) For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91)

CG portal site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx; and

2-97

COMDTINST M5000.10G

the USCG Acquisition Road Map (ARM) at:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm9.aspx.

e. Program Manager Activities Include:

(1) Completion of the Program Transition Plan (PTP) defined tasks;

(2) Complete an LCCE annual update as required. Contact Commandant (CG-

9283) at least six calendar months prior to the planned EOC annual or ADE-4

brief;

(3) Human Systems Integration Activities Include:

(a) Ensure HSI transition to sustainment activities are incorporated into the

Program Transition Plan (PTP); and,

(b) Update all applicable plans and documents required to support the

acquired asset after transition to sustainment as directed by Commandant

(CG-1B3);

(4) Support the development and update of PPBE sustainment resource proposals;

(5) Document the completion of program capability milestones (e.g., Full

Operational Capability (FOC), discrete segment deployment, etc.) in

accordance with Reference (c);

(6) Transition of the ILSMT to the sustainment program manager per Reference

(h);

Note: Each Coast Guard asset (cutter, boat, aircraft, information technology

system, electronics system, facility, etc.) must maintain logistics life cycle

support in accordance with Reference (h). This policy is maintained by Office

of Logistics, Commandant (CG-44).

(7) Cancel the program’s IPT charters; and,

(8) Coordinate the program staff reallocation.

4. Return to Capability Gap Identification Phase. For information on re-entering the

acquisition phase of the Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF), refer to the Capability

Gap Identification Phase beginning on page 2-9 of this chapter.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-98

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-31: Capability Gap Identification Cycle

The ALF Document Alignment Chart is found on the next page.

Intentionally Left Blank

2-99

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 2-32: ALF Document Alignment

Note: The acronym list is found at Enclosure 1.

If printing a hard copy of the MSAM, recommend inserting, after this page, the 11x17 inch

CG-ALF Pre-ADE-1 activity alignment diagram found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site: Https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

2-100

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 3. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

A. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING INTRODUCTION

1. Overview

a. This chapter is written for the acquisition Program Technical Lead to describe the

integration of the Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) within the context of the

Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework.

b. The PM designated Program Technical Lead (recommend a DHS certified Senior

(Level III) Systems Engineer) is responsible for coordinating all program system

engineering technical efforts.

c. To facilitate system engineering planning for USCG acquisition programs, this

chapter provides USCG SELC implementation policies and a pre-tailored version of

the DHS SELC referred to as the USCG SELC.

2. DHS Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC)

Figure 3-1: DHS SELC

a. The SELC is a technical framework, which complements the Acquisition Life Cycle

Framework, enables consistent technical management, and supports the efficient and

effective delivery of capabilities to end users.

b. Programs are required to document their specific approach for complying with the

intent of the SELC activities, artifacts, and technical reviews in a program SELC

Tailoring Plan (PSTP).

c. The SELC Framework is flexible and intended to be tailored to suit program

characteristics and development methodology. The next paragraph describes the pre-

tailored USCG SELC that programs will use as the PSTP starting point.

3-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. CG Systems Engineering Life Cycle (CG SELC)

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-2: CG SELC

a. The CG-SELC is a framework for systems engineering and acquisition technical

management that:

(1) Must be used as the starting point for the development of all CG-SELC

tailoring plans;

(2) Is in accordance with Department of Homeland Security Systems Engineering

Life Cycle Instruction 102-01-103, Revision #01, and Reference (t);

Note: Links to Reference (t) may be found on the Commandant (CG-924) CG

portal site at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(3) Includes added emphasis for capital asset acquisition SE activities and criteria;

(4) Reflects CG’s emphasis on using technologies and systems that are “state of

the market” rather than “state of the art,” to reduce program risks;

(5) Leverages generally accepted terminology across SE policy sources (CG, DoD,

GAO, etc.); and,

(6) Incorporates proven practices from other SE policy sources (e.g., DoD, GAO

recommendations).

b. The CG-SELC refers to the systems engineering activity groupings as Stages (e.g.,

Needs Analysis Stage); and,

c. The CG-SELC may be further adapted to the unique nature of each program through

the Program SE Tailoring Plan (PSTP).

3-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Additional information about the Coast Guard SELC framework may be found in the

systems engineering section of the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal under “CG-

SELC.”

4. Systems Engineering Planning

Note: For implementation, the SELC is broken into three separate PSTP groupings (Initial

Technical Review (ITR); Capability Development Plan (CDP) covering the Analyze/Select

Phase; and PSTP beginning at ADE-2A).

a. Initial Technical Review (ITR).

(1) The ITR is a SE review held prior to ADE-1 to evaluate the technical

preparedness of the program for the Analyze/Select Phase.

(2) If draft documentation is used (e.g., CDP) for the ITR, the PM should plan

enough time for document approval prior to the planned EOC review date

supporting ADE-1.

(3) The ITR criteria are not included in the CDP because the ITR occurs before the

CDP is approved.

Note: See the ITR Template on the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. Capability Development Plan (CDP): The technical portion of the CDP outlines SE

activities planned for the Analyze/Select Phase and SELC Solution Analysis and

Planning stage.

Note: The program should review the SE criteria in the CDP for currency prior to

SPR.

Note: See the CDP Template on the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

c. Program Systems Engineering Tailoring Plan (PSTP).

(1) The PSTP documents the proposed adaptation of the CG-SELC framework to

support the program’s technical approach from the beginning of Obtain Phase to ADE-4;

(2) PSTP is approved at ADE-2A; and,

(3) The PSTP should be updated as needed to reflect the current SE approach.

Note: See the PSTP template on the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

5. SELC Tailoring

a. The CG SELC (e.g., reviews, stages, criteria and documentation) is tailorable

through the PSTP to support program-unique characteristics;

3-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. All PSTP template review criteria must be evaluated by the PM/Technical Lead/IPT;

c. Examples of CG-SELC tailoring include:

(1) Combining SELC reviews, stages, criteria and documentation (e.g., PPR and

SDR conducted concurrently);

(2) Scaling the content of SELC reviews, stages, criteria and documentation;

(3) To support less complex programs, SELC reviews, stages, criteria, and

documentation may be adapted to accommodate the lower level of technical

risk management required;

(4) To accommodate more complex programs, SELC reviews, stages, criteria and

documentation may be expanded or added (e.g., environmental criteria,

multiple IRRs, multiple PRRs);

(5) Expanding Program Protection/Cybersecurity functional requirements within

SELC processes, reviews, stages, activities, review criteria and artifacts

governing system and design requirements; and,

(6) Review criteria and SE documentation may be proposed as “not applicable” by the PM to align to the program’s unique technical execution plan.

d. Programs must follow the below actions to maintain traceability for SELC PSTP

elements determined as not applicable.

Note: See the CG PSTP template instructions for justification annotation

recommendations.

(1) Non-applicable review criteria will be identified and supported by a

justification;

(2) PM must segregate the “not applicable” criteria and unused optional SE

reviews into a PSTP Enclosure;

Note: The Enclosure containing the not applicable review criteria must be in

the same format as the PSTP and maintained as a permanent part of the PSTP;

(3) CG-SELC tailoring must be endorsed by the ETA through the approval process

of the PSTP; and,

(4) Criteria identified in the CG PSTP as mandatory (required) must be maintained

as part of the PSTP. To declare a criteria as not applicable, the program must

gain concurrence from the relevant ETA and explain the reason in the PSTP

for the exclusion determination.

6. SELC Technical Reviews

a. The purpose of each SELC stage review is summarized in Figure 3-3 SELC Stage

Reviews. The PM/APEO is responsible for leading, arranging and coordinating

SELC Technical Reviews and must include participation from the ETAs, Sponsor,

3-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

and Commandant (CG-924). DHS staff representatives (PARM SE and SE&S

(Systems Engineering and Standards)) must be invited to all SELC Technical

Reviews;

Note: After contract award, the SELC Technical Reviews are frequently broken into

two reviews, the highly technical review with the Contractor and the Government

only review to evaluate the acquisition program’s progress and readiness to proceed

into the next stage.

b. Commandant (CG-2) technical representative must be invited to all SE reviews for

programs with classified systems;

c. The PM, ETAs, and Sponsor rely on the appropriate SMEs in attendance to evaluate

the completion of activities and compliance with SELC Technical Review criteria;

and,

d. Each review has a set of criteria that must be completed or met prior to proceeding.

Review criteria are presented in the ITR, CDP, and PSTP in question format and

categorized by function to provide content-centered guidance.

SELC Stage Review Table Is on the next page

Intentionally Left Blank

3-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

ALF Phases

/ADEs

SELC

Review

SELC

StageActivity

Need Phase ITR Need Analysis

Initial Technical Review reviews the CDP to ensure it clearly reflects the A/S phase activities to be

performed in order to address the capability gaps. Reviews preliminary SELC analysis and planning

(PSTP). ITR directly supports the (ALF) ADE-1 decision.

SPR

Study Plan Review includes examination of initial AA study plan ground rules, assumptions, scope,

evaluation criteria and method of analysis. Establish and review engagement plans with SMEs and TAs on

cyber/program protection, EA, Threat analysis, environmental, and other specialized technical areas.

SPR criteria documented first within CDP, updated in PSTP if needed.

SAR

Solution Analysis Review examines the results of the AA and recommended solution(s); evaluates and

refines the systems engineering and technical activities needed to pursue the recommended

alternative(s). SAR criteria are first documented within the CDP, and updated in the PSTP to account for

changes during A/S.

PPR

Program Planning Review ensures that the program foundational elements (e.g. WBS, CONOPS), and life

cycle schedules, scope and planning documents are executable and program is ready to proceed to the

execution stage upon ADE-2A approval (by DHS for Major programs). Criteria are updated from the CDP

and documented in PSTP.

SDR

System

Requirements

Definition

System Definition Review ensures that the functional and interface requirements are identified,

measurable, testable, and traceable to a source, and documented in a system specification. Criteria for

SDR and later Reviews are approved in PSTP.

PDRPreliminary

Design

Preliminary Design Review assesses the system's preliminary design to ensure that the planned technical

approach will meet the specification requirements.

CDRDefinitized

Design

Critical Design Review ensures/validates that the system design is complete and accurate in its functional

and physical description, and can provide the results defined in the baseline requirements. Assesses

readiness to build system level DT&E assets.

IRR

Integration Readiness Review assesses readiness to begin system level full integration testing based on

the results of subsystem or off-platform functional integration tests. Ensures the adequacy of system's

Development T&E planning.

PRR

Production Readiness Review-Low rate (PRR-L) determines if the development-tested design has met

system specification requirements and is ready for low rate production (or limited deployment for IT);

evaluates the readiness of the producers' manufacturing processes and resources for low rate

production. Assesses readiness of initial logistics system to support deployed low rate production assets

OTRROperational Test Readiness Review asesses the program's production assets' readiness to enter initial

Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E).

ORR

Operational Readiness Review assesses whether the OT&E tested system meets mission need and is

ready for full rate production--and manufacturers, users, operators, and maintainers are adequately

equipped and trained to produce/deliver, operate and support the deployed full rate production assets.

Produce/

Deploy/

Support

Phase

PIR

Operations,

Maintenance

and Disposition

Post-Implementation Review evaluates the actual results provided by fielded systems compared to

predictions in terms of cost, schedule, performance and mission outcomes; to determine the causes of

major differences between planned and end results and develop corrective courses of action as

appropriate.

Analyze/

Select Phase

Obtain Phase

Solution Analysis

and Planning

Development

Integration and

Test

Implementation

ADE1

ADE 2B

ADE 2C

ADE 3

ADE 4

ADE 2A

Figure 3-3: SELC Stage Review Table

Intentionally Left Blank

3-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

7. SELC Technical Review Completion Letter (TRCL) Process

Figure 3-4: SELC Technical Review Completion Letter Process

a. Upon technical review completion, the PM drafts the SELC TRCL requesting

permission to begin the next SELC activity supported by documented satisfactory

completion of criteria and identification of any criteria shortfalls and the planned

solutions;

Note: A SELC TRCL template may be found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG

portal at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

b. The SELC TRCL should include the following information in accordance with DHS

Instruction 102-01-103 Rev 01:

(1) The outcome/result of the technical review:

(a) Complete (program can proceed);

(b) Incomplete (program cannot proceed); or,

(c) Conditional (program can proceed contingent on completion of actions,

with corrective action plan).

(2) Certification that an applicable baseline was established at the completion of

the review;

(3) Any modifications to/elimination of SELC Technical Review summary-level

exit criteria and rationale for modifications/eliminations; and,

(4) Copy of the Sponsor and ETAs summary-level exit criteria scores and

evidentiary bases.

c. The PM must coordinate reviews with stakeholder;

d. The SELC TRCL must be endorsed by the Flag/SES ETAs (Commandant(s) (CG-1),

(CG-4), (CG-6), (CG-2 as appropriate)) and Sponsors (CG-7);

e. The SELC TRCL must be approved within the USCG in accordance with Figure 3-5

SELC Technical Reviews Approval Authorities; and,

3-7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: For SE review approval authorities not identified in this figure, contact

Commandant (CG-924)

SELC

Review/ADEITR SPR SAR PPR SDR PDR CDR IRR PRR OTRR ORR PIR

Tech Review

Approval

Authority

CG-9 ADA CG-9 CG-9 CG-9 ADA CG-93 CG-9 ADA CG-9 CG-93 CG-9 ADA CG-9 CG-9 ADA SponsorCG

DCMS

Endorsement of TRCL includes appropriate Engineering Technical Authority/Technical Authority, Sponsor, CIO/CIOd, PM

ADE1

ADE2A

ADE2B

ADE2C

ADE3

ADE4

Figure 3-5: SELC Technical Reviews Approval Authorities

f. The SELC Technical Review Completion Letter must be uploaded into the DHS

Data Source System, and an electronic copy sent to Commandant (CG-924) within

30 calendar days after the completion of the review.

8. SELC Technical Baselines

a. This section defines the technical baselines used within the MSAM. The baselines

identified in Table 3-1 below are recognized and defined in DHS SELC guidance.

Tailoring or re-designation of these baselines is authorized through documentation

and approval within the program’s SELC tailoring plan (PSTP).

b. PMs may define additional technical baselines in the PSTP necessary to execute their

programs but should align to the technical baselines defined in this section.

Table 3-1: DHS Defined SELC Technical Baselines

Baseline Definition

Operational

Established by the Sponsor, the Operational Baseline represents the set of

operational requirements and the applicable source documents that define the

system's behavioral characteristics from a user perspective. This baseline

includes the MNS, System Context Diagram, ORD, Concept of Operations

(CONOPS), and the AOA/AA final report, and updated Risk Assessment Report

(RAR), and updated System Security Plan (SSP), at a minimum. The intent of

this baseline is to communicate the operator’s needs unambiguously and

completely in operational, not technical, terms.

Functional

Defines the functions the system has to perform, but not how the system must

perform them. It is represented by the set of artifacts that defines the system's

boundaries and external interfaces, its behavioral characteristics as well as the

means of verification required to demonstrate that these characteristics have

been realized.

Allocated

Established by reviewing subsystem and component definitions, requirements

allocations to subsystems and component CIs, design, and test approaches. This

is the "design-to" baseline that is established at the PDR and is managed and

maintained by the program office.

Table continued on the next page.

3-8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Baseline Definition

Developmental

Detailed design process results for the system, hardware, software, support

equipment, training systems, system integration laboratory, and technical data.

This baseline consists of the SRD and system design document (SDD), or

equivalent. It is established at the CDR and is the "build-to" (or “code-to”)

baseline, which results in the physical realization of the system.

Production

It is represented by the set of artifacts that defines the configuration of the

system and each of its Configuration Items (CIs) as delivered for production,

deployment, and operational support. It is the "as-built" version of the system

whose CIs have undergone any required qualification testing and operational

testing (OT) and has been determined to be ready for production.

Intentionally Left Blank

3-9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

B. SELC NEEDS ANALYSIS STAGE

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and

Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-6: Need Analysis Stage

1. Needs Analysis Stage Overview

a. Scope. The Needs Analysis Stage supports the Need Phase within the ALF.

b. Objectives.

(1) Successfully complete the ITR; and,

(2) Determine criteria for the Analyze/Select Phase SE reviews (e.g., SPR, SAR,

and Define PPR) for inclusion in the CDP.

2. Needs Analysis Stage

a. Entrance Criteria for Needs Analysis Stage: Materiel Decision.

b. The APEO (PM if Identified) Need Analysis Stage Activities Include:

(1) Support the Sponsor with Need Phase activities as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Develop the SELC Tailoring Plan for the Analyze/Select Phase and document

in the CDP;

Note: If the program plans to use technology demonstrators contact

Commandant (CG-924) for assistance.

(3) Conduct Initial Technical Review (ITR):

Note: See the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal for the ITR Template.

3-11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(a) Objective: To ensure an appropriate level of analysis was performed to

support the evaluation of materiel solutions. Assess whether the CDP

clearly reflects all activities to be performed during the Analyze/Select

Phase and address the capability gaps defined in the MNS.

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] The Draft CDP;

[2] CAR, MNS, and supporting materials forming the basis of

CAR/MNS content;

[3] Desired operating concept reflecting at least one operational

concept that may meet mission requirements and that may be

acceptable to the operational user; and,

[4] Technology review of the DHS/Component Enterprise

Architecture to ensure that a candidate solution does not already

exist leading to a Non Duplication Certification. Contact

Commandant (CG-671) via email at HQS-DG-lst-CG-

671@uscg.mil.

c. Needs Analysis Stage Expected Outcomes: Successful completion of the ITR

3. Sponsor Representative Activities: Preparation for ADE-1

Note: APEO (PM/Lead Engineer if assigned) supports these activities.

a. Complete Need Phase Documentation and activities as defined in Table 2-4 ADE-1

Documentation; and,

b. Support the APEO in the ITR.

Intentionally Left Blank

3-12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

C. SELC SOLUTION ANALYSIS AND PLANNING STAGES.

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and

Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-7: Solution Analysis and Planning Stages

1. Solution Analysis and Planning Stages Overview

a. Scope. The Solution Analysis and Planning Stage supports the Analyze/Select Phase

of the ALF.

Note: Prior to SPR, the PM (Lead Systems Engineer if assigned) must update as

necessary the CDP Analyze/Select phase SELC plan to accurately reflect the

chartered PM’s Analyze/Select Phase execution plan.

Note: The CG SE tailoring commonly overlap the Solution Analysis and Planning

stages of the SELC. The stages are addressed separately in the succeeding

paragraphs for clarity and readability purposes.

b. Objectives

(1) Executing Analyze/Select Phase defined in the CDP and Planning the SE for

the Obtain Phase and beyond (represented in the PSTP).

(2) Incorporation of SE technical requirements into the contract solicitation (RFP).

(3) Solution Analysis Stage:

(a) Successfully complete the SPR; and,

(b) Successfully complete the SAR.

(4) Planning Stage: Successfully complete the PPR; and,

3-13

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(5) DHS Director, Office of Systems Engineering (DOSE) Technical Assessment:

The successful completion of the DHS DOSE Technical Assessment and the

EAB/CIO assessment.

2. Solution Analysis Stage (Establish operational requirements and determine preferred

solution concept):

a. Entrance Criteria for Solution Analysis Stage Includes:

(1) ADE-1 ADM; and,

(2) Signed ITR completion letter indicating successful completion of ITR.

b. Systems Engineer or Program Technical Lead Solution Analysis Stage Activities

Include (if assigned):

(1) Support the PM with Analyze/Select phase activities as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Initiate (if not started) the Requirements Traceability and Verification Matrix

(RTVM);

(3) Conduct SPR; and,

Note: The AA/AoA Study Director should anticipate presenting the study plan

and responding to questions during the review.

(a) Objective: Ensure documentation is complete and comprehensive to

permit the successful completion of the independent AA process and

demonstrates readiness to begin the AA process. Determines if the AA

Study Plan is ready to proceed though the approval process

(b) Entrance Criteria Includes:

[1] AA Study Plan;

[2] An initial set of potential Operational Requirements for the defined

capability has been identified (P-ORD); and,

[3] The desired operational concept, or equivalent, is defined (as

needed) to reflect potential CONOPS variations that may result

from different alternatives being proposed in the study plan.

(c) Exit Criteria are found in the SELC section of the CDP.

(4) Support the identification and evaluate potential solution alternatives:

Note: The program supports the AA with relevant information through the

independent study team’s Study Plan Director.

(a) Support market research;

(b) Assess technology, supply chain, industrial base, and manufacturing

readiness of potential solutions; and,

3-14

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(c) Conduct feasibility studies and trade-off analyses.

(5) Conduct SAR:

(a) Objective: Ensure operational requirements agree with the customers’ needs and expectations and that the system under review can proceed to

detailed planning.

(b) Entrance Criteria Includes:

[1] Signed SPR completion letter indicating successful completion;

[2] AA Final Report has been submitted to the PM; and,

[3] PM’s - recommendation memo.

(c) Additional Artifacts to Review (e.g., MNS, CDP, P-ORD, draft

CONOPs, Cost Estimating Baseline Document [CEBD], etc.); and,

(d) Exit Criteria are in the Analyze/ Select Phase SELC found in the CDP.

c. Solution Analysis Stage Expected Outcomes

(1) Successful completion of the SAR;

(2) Preferred solution identified; and,

(3) Operational Baseline established (see Table 3-1).

3. Planning Stage

Note: The Solution Analysis and Planning Stages usually overlap.

a. Entrance Criteria for the Planning Stage Includes:

(1) Signed SAR completion letter;

(2) AA Final Report has been submitted and signed; and,

(3) CAE Preferred Solution Determination.

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Planning Stage Activities Include (if assigned):

(1) Develop technical management content and align system engineering efforts

with documentation as outlined in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation in Chapter 8;

(2) Support development of Request for Proposal (RFP) and ensure system

engineering considerations are addressed in:

(a) Statement of Work (SOW);

(b) Section L and M of the RFP;

(c) Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL); and,

3-15

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(d) Develop system performance specification.

(3) Coordinate with Commandants (CG-924, CG-93TD), and DHS (Systems

Engineering & Standards) to plan for the required DHS Technical Assessment

before ADE-2A and determine if a program technology readiness assessment

(TRA) is needed;

(4) Conduct technology readiness assessment to determine critical technology

elements, assess the technical maturity of those and the integrated system using

tools and metrics including Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) and

Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs); and,

(5) Conduct PPR:

Note: See the CDP for review criteria.

(a) Objective: Validate sufficient analysis and planning has been conducted

to begin the program and conduct a successful Obtain Phase; and,

(b) Additional Artifacts to Review (e.g., cost estimate documentation).

c. Planning Stage Expected Outcomes

(1) Successful completion of the PPR; and,

(2) Incorporation of SE requirements into the contract solicitation (RFP).

4. Analyze/Select Phase System Engineering/Program Management IPT Activities

Include:

a. Develop/update technical management content of documentation as outlined in Table

8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation in Chapter 8;

b. Support execution of all technical management activities for the Analyze/Select

Phase outlined in Chapter 2;

c. Identify engineering trade-off opportunities for cost, schedule, and performance;

d. Support the Program-Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management (P-CARM)

Integrated Product Team (IPT);

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information on the P-CARM.

e. Identify key SE resources and requirements;

f. Assess technology and manufacturing readiness levels for critical technologies and

the integrated system as part of the program technology readiness assessment to

support the DHS Technical Assessment;

g. Support execution of general C5I compliance requirements for spectrum

management or allocations, privacy, and section 508; and,

3-16

COMDTINST M5000.10G

h. Coordinate with Naval Engineering Commandant (CG-45) and Aviation Engineering

Commandant (CG-41) for the program specific requirements; and,

i. Implement Configuration Management:

(1) Establish process for implementing and managing Engineering Change

Proposals (ECPs); and,

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional guidance and limitations associated with

ECPs.

(2) Refine and manage the draft functional baseline (draft system specification).

Intentionally Left Blank

3-17

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-18

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. SELC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS DEFINITION AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN

STAGES

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-8: Systems Requirements Definition and Preliminary Design Stages

1. Overview: (System Requirements Definition and Preliminary Design Stages)

a. Scope. The SELC Requirements Definition and Preliminary Design stages

correspond to the Obtain Phase between ADE-2A and ADE-2B of the ALF.

b. Objectives:

(1) System Requirements Definition:

(a) Successfully complete the SDR; and,

(b) Establish the system’s Functional Baseline.

(2) Preliminary Design:

(a) Successfully complete the PDR; and,

(b) Establish the system’s Allocated Baseline.

2. System Requirements Definition. (Establish a Functional Baseline and prepare for RFP

release)

a. Entrance Criteria for System Requirements Definition Stage Includes:

(1) ADE-2A ADM has been issued;

(2) Signed SPR, SAR and PPR completion letters; and,

3-19

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(3) Draft technical sections of the solicitation (RFP) (e.g., SOW, SPEC, CDRL

and other relevant contract sections).

b. SE or Program Technical Lead System Requirements Definition Stage

Activities Include (if assigned):

(1) Support the PM with Obtain Phase activities as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Incorporate SE requirements into the contract Solicitation (RFP) (e.g., SOW,

SPEC, CDRLS and contract sections);

(3) Support IT Acquisition Review (ITAR) process requirements;

(4) Verify compliance with the Coast Guard Implementation of the Rehabilitation

Act, Section 508, COMDINST 5230.60 (series);

Note: Section 508 compliance validation is required for contract actions.

(5) Identify functional and non-functional requirements across:

Note: See Glossary for definitions for functional and non-functional

requirements.

(a) System Performance;

(b) Reliability and Maintainability;

(c) Safety;

(d) System Security;

(e) Manufacturing;

(f) Supportability;

(g) Environmental; and,

(h) Human Systems Integration (HSI).

(6) Identify verification and validation methods for each requirement;

(7) Develop or continue development of Specification;

(8) Develop Interface Control Document (ICD);

(9) Continue to mature the Requirements Traceability and Verification Matrix

(RTVM);

(10) Continue preparation of draft RFP to include CDRLs, SOW, and contract

sections; and,

(11) Conduct SDR:

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria.

3-20

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(a) Objective: Review and approve the technical description of the system,

including its system functional and non-functional requirements and top-

level enterprise architecture, and to establish a functional baseline for the

system;

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] Functional and non-functional requirements developed; and,

[2] Functional and requirements analysis artifacts prepared (such as a

System Specification/FRD).

(c) Additional Artifacts to Review (e.g., P-ILSP, P-APB, TEMP, ORD,

CONOPS, Industry/Regulatory/Statutory regulations); and,

(d) Review the status of Certifications required for the system or key

subsystems (e.g., airworthiness, frequency spectrum, aviation

engineering, naval engineering, safety, etc.).

Note: Systems and products provided by other programs (e.g., C5I) for

operational use must be operationally tested with the receiving

asset/system. System/asset providers must plan and coordinate program

specific testing, combined and interoperability testing with the receiving

program PMs and T&E IPTs for DT&E and OT&E execution and

reporting.

c. System Requirements Definition Stage Expected Outcomes

(1) Successful completion of the SDR;

(2) Completed and approved Functional Baseline; and

(3) Completed and reviewed RFP package with SE requirements, to be used in the

final RFP: SOW, CDRLs, Sections L and M, system specifications and

baseline documents.

3. Preliminary Design Stage (Manage Contractor/Technical Execution and Establish an

Allocated Baseline)

a. Entrance Criteria for Preliminary Design Stage: Signed SDR completion letter

indicating successful completion

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Preliminary Design Stage Activities Include (if

assigned):

(1) Support the PM and Sponsor with Obtain Phase activities as defined in Chapter

2;

(2) Monitor the contractor’s or development agent’s allocation of defined system

level functional and non-functional requirements, physical constraints, and

design considerations to key subsystems and configuration items across the

3-21

COMDTINST M5000.10G

eight (8) areas listed within the System Requirements Definition Stage

(paragraph 2.b.5), above;

(3) Develop Data and Physical Architecture;

(4) Monitor the contractor’s or development agent’s definition of the Development

Test and Evaluation Plan (DT&EP or DTP);

(5) Draft Site Preparation Plan;

(6) Initiate Privacy Impact Assessment (as applicable);

(7) Review CDRLs for PDR; and,

(8) Conduct PDR:

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria.

(a) Objective: Review and approve the allocation of functional and non-

functional requirements from the functional baseline to one or more

Configuration Items (CIs) in the physical architecture to establish the

allocated baseline;

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] Preliminary design developed based on the approved Functional

Baseline (includes Requirements Traceability and Verification

Matrix (RTVM)); and,

[2] Other criteria as defined in the approved PSTP.

(c) Additional Artifacts to Review at PDR as defined in the PSTP.

c. Preliminary Design Stage Expected Outcomes

(1) Successful completion of the PDR; and,

(2) Completed and approved Allocated Baseline.

4. Systems Engineering/Program Management IPT Activities Include:

a. Update technical management content of and ensure system engineering aligns with

the program documentation outlined in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation in Chapter 8;

b. Support execution of all technical management activities for the ADE-2A to ADE-

2B portion of the Obtain Phase outlined in Chapter 2;

c. Configuration Management Includes:

(1) Manage ECPs; and,

(2) Establish and maintain Allocated Baseline.

3-22

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and limitations associated with

ECPs.

d. Review the status of Certifications required for the system or key subsystems.

Certifications include Airworthiness, Frequency Spectrum, Aviation Engineering,

Naval Engineering, etc.

Intentionally Left Blank

3-23

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-24

COMDTINST M5000.10G

E. SELC DEFINITIZED DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, INTEGRATION AND TEST &

EVALUATION STAGES

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-9: Definitized Design and Development, Integration and Test Stages

1. Overview (Definitized Design, Development, Integration and Test Stages)

a. Scope. This SELC Definitized Design, Development, and Integration and Test stages

correspond to the Obtain Phase between ADE-2B and ADE-2C of the ALF.

Note: The SE Tailoring commonly combines the Development Stage with

Integration and Test Stage and executes them concurrently. For clarity, the stages are

discussed below separately in the next two succeeding sections.

b. Objectives

(1) Definitized Design:

(a) Successfully complete the CDR; and,

(b) Establish the system’s Developmental Baseline;

(2) Development: Successfully complete the IRR; and,

(3) Integration and Test: Successfully complete the PRR-L.

2. Definitized Design (Establish an Initial Production Baseline)

a. Entrance Criteria for Definitized Design Stage Include:

(1) ADE-2B ADM has been issued; and,

(2) Signed PDR completion letter.

3-25

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Definitized Design Stage Activities Include (if

assigned):

(1) Support the PM with Obtain Phase activities as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Ensure the contractor’s or development agent’s design is complete and

accurate in its functional and physical description and can meet the

requirement in the eight (8) areas as listed within the System Requirements

Definition Stage (paragraph D.2.b.(5)) above;

(3) Review developed build-to specifications at the lowest appropriate level of

design;

(4) Execute Early Operational Assessments (EOAs) if planned;

(5) Develop Operational Assessment Plan;

(6) Initiate System of Records Notice (if applicable – IT programs); and,

(7) Conduct Critical Design Review (CDR):

(a) Objective: The contractor or development agent demonstrates that all

aspects of the detailed design of a system and its subsystems are

complete so that the system can be built and test procedures developed.

Confirm the design is complete, accurate, and can produce the results

defined in the baseline requirements;

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] Detailed design completed based on the approved Allocated

Baseline; and,

[2] Other criteria as defined in the contract.

(c) Additional Artifacts to Review as defined in the PSTP.

c. Definitized Design Stage Expected Outcomes Include:

(1) Successful completion of the CDR and PRR; and,

(2) Product baseline established.

3. Development Stage (Build, manufacture, and begin testing components of system)

Note: It is a common CG practice to synchronize execution of the Development Stage with

the Integration and Test Stage.

a. Entrance Criteria for Development Stage: Signed CDR completion letter.

3-26

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Development Stage Activities (If assigned)

Include:

(1) Support the PM and Sponsor with Obtain Phase activities as defined in Chapter

2;

(2) Build/manufacture and configure system components or sub-systems;

(3) Conduct DT&E for individual components and sub-systems;

(4) Finalize Operational Assessment Plans;

(5) Initiate or refine Operational Test Plan (OTP);

(6) Initiate draft Training/Operator/Maintenance Manuals;

(7) Prepare Manufacturing/Installation Plans;

(8) Review CDRLs for Integration Readiness Review (IRR); and,

(9) Conduct Integration Readiness Review (IRR):

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria

(a) Objective: Assess system development efforts and sub-

system/component testing results to ensure system is ready for

integration and system-level DT&E;

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] Deficiencies identified during previous assessments or contractor

testing addressed;

[2] Data available that demonstrates subcontractor/vendor testing of

the component/sub-system is complete;

[3] Required interfaces integrated and tested at the

subcontractor/vendor sites;

[4] Changes to the Allocated or Initial Product Baseline coordinated

through an approved change control process; and,

[5] The test configuration is accepted either through CDR or PRR-I

and placed under configuration control.

(c) Artifacts to Review: DT&E plans, sub-system/component test results,

TEMP and Development Baseline/Product Baseline.

Note: The IRR maybe split into two reviews: IRR 1 and IRR 2. IRR-1 is

conducted earlier in the Integration and Test Stage with a focus on

subsystem/component off-platform integration testing. IRR-2 is conducted at

the end of the Integration and T&E stage with a focus on system-level

preparedness for system-level DT&E.

3-27

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Development Stage Expected Outcomes Include:

(1) Successful completion of IRR(s); and,

(2) Updated Initial Product Baseline.

4. Integration and Test Stage (Integration of components/sub-systems and verification that

integrated system meets requirements)

Note: It is a common CG practice to synchronize execution of the Integration and Test

Stages.

a. Entrance Criteria for Integration and Test Stage Includes: Signed IRR

completion letter(s) indicating successful completion.

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Integration and Test Stage Activities Include (if

assigned):

(1) Support the PM and Sponsor with Obtain Phase activities as defined in Chapter

2;

(2) System Assembly;

(3) Monitor contractor testing;

(4) Execute Operational Assessment (OA) (if required to support ADE-2C);

(5) Conduct Functional Configuration Audit (FCA);

(6) Finalize Operational Test Plan (OTP);

(7) Refine and Update Training/Operator/Maintenance Manuals;

(8) Finalize Manufacturing/Installation Plans for creating system level assets for

DT&E, if not already done so at CDR or PRR-I;

(9) Review CDRLs for Integration Readiness Review (IRR); and,

(10) Conduct LRIP Production Readiness Review (PRR-L):

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria.

(a) Objective: Determine if developmentally-tested design has met system

specification requirements and is ready for low rate production (or

limited deployment for IT) and evaluate the readiness of the producers'

manufacturing processes and resources for low rate production.

(b) Entrance Criteria:

[1] Integrated testing complete and results and analysis of all testing

complete and available;

[2] Product Baseline is approved to support low rate

production/limited deployment;

3-28

COMDTINST M5000.10G

[3] All critical manufacturing technologies, processes, and resources

are mature and ready enough for low rate production/limited

deployment;

[4] All integrated logistics support elements and plans are in place to

support the low rate production/limited deployment;

(c) Artifacts to Review: DT&E plans, DT&E reports, sub-

system/component test results, Product Baseline, and all manufacturing

drawings/processes, resource and process planning,

training/operations/maintenance manual, etc.

Note: Systems and products provided by other programs (e.g., C5I) for

operational use must be operationally tested with the receiving asset/system.

c. Integration and Test Stage Expected Outcomes:

(1) Successful completion of PRR-L; and,

(2) Completed and approved Product Baseline to support Low Rate Production.

5. System Engineering/Program Management IPT Activities: Preparation for ADE-2C.

a. Update technical management content of and ensure system engineering efforts align

with program documentation outlined in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation;

b. Support execution of all technical management activities for the ADE-2B to ADE-

2C portion of the Obtain Phase outlined in Chapter 2;

c. Execute Configuration Management:

(1) Manage Product Baseline through ECPs; and,

(2) Update Product Baseline for Low Rate Production.

Note: See Chapter 5 for additional information and limitations associated with

ECPs.

d. Review the status of Certifications required for the system or key subsystems.

Certifications include Airworthiness, Frequency Spectrum, Aviation Engineering,

Naval Engineering, etc.

3-29

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-30

COMDTINST M5000.10G

F. SELC – IMPLEMENTATION STAGE

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-10: Implementation Stage

1. Overview (Implementation Stage)

a. Scope. The SELC Implementation stage corresponds to the Obtain Phase, beginning

at ADE-2C and continues into the Produce, Deploy, Support Phase. This section

covers the Implementation Stage that aligns with the ALF Obtain Phase from ADE-

2C to ADE-3.

b. Objectives Include: Successfully complete an ORR and if appropriate a separate

PRR-F to support a full rate production decision at ADE-3.

2. Implementation Stage (Prepare the system, users, support infrastructure for intended use)

a. Entrance Criteria for Implementation Stage Includes:

(1) ADE-2C ADM has been issued; and,

(2) Signed PRR-L (Low Rate Production) completion letter.

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Implementation Stage Activities Include (if

assigned):

(1) Support the PM and Sponsor with Obtain and Produce/Deploy & Support

Phase activities as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Build LRIP Units;

(3) Complete site preparation and deployment in support of IOT&E and advanced

deployment preparations;

3-31

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(4) Conduct Physical Configuration Audit (PCA);

(5) Obtain Interim Authority to Test (IATT);

(6) Conduct OTRR:

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria.

(a) Objective: Assess readiness to enter initial Operational Test and

Evaluation (IOT&E also referred as OT&E);

(b) Entrance Criteria Includes:

[1] Initial Production Baseline is established;

[2] Resources are in place to execute OT&E (e.g., operators,

maintainers, spare parts, funding, etc.)

[3] System deficiencies and risks are identified and resolved;

[4] System configuration is representative of system being produced

and is under configuration control; and,

[5] Applicable criteria defined in DHS Directive 026-06, Test and

Evaluation, are met.

(c) Additional Artifacts to Review include: TEMP, Developmental Test

Plans and Reports, Operational Test Plan, deficiency correction plans

and results as applicable, Requirements Traceability and Verification

Matrix (RTVM), baseline information, ATO and security assessment

info.

(7) Conduct IOT&E with ITA/OTD;

Note: Systems and products provided by other programs (e.g., C5I) for

operational use must be operationally tested with the receiving asset/system.

(8) Review IOT&E Report;

(9) Prepare FOT&E plan (if needed) and update TEMP;

(10) Coordinate changes to system for Full rate manufacturing & production via the

Configuration Management process;

(11) Convert legacy data for use in new system (as applicable – IT centric);

(12) Publish System of Record Notice and obtain Privacy Office Affirmation (as

applicable – IT system);

(13) Obtain ATO and develop POA&M;

(14) Develop SE PIR criteria and document it in the PSTP; and,

3-32

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: A SELC PIR must be conducted normally 6 to 12 months after IOC or as

directed by ADM. For Guidance, see the USCG PIR template and instructions

found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site page at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

(15) Conduct ORR:

Note: See the PSTP for exit criteria.

Note: ORR can also be combined with a Production Readiness Review-Full

Rate (PRR-F). PRR-F is recommended but is dependent on the risks and

requirements of the program.

(a) Objective: Determine that system meets the mission need and

operational requirements, possesses the required manufacturing and

logistic support capabilities, and is ready to proceed into full rate

production, fielding, and operation.

(b) Entrance Criteria Includes:

[1] Test failures and anomalies from operational testing are resolved

and the results are incorporated into all supporting and enabling

operational products;

[2] Deficiencies identified during previous technical reviews and

assessments are corrected; and,

(c) Artifacts to Review: Complete Baseline Package, Manufacturing

processes and plans, configuration or manufacturing changes since ADE-

2C, OTR, logistic support data, ATO and Risk Assessment.

c. Implementation Stage Expected Outcomes Include:

(1) Successful completion of the IOT&E;

(2) Successful completion of the ORR and PRR-F if adopted; and,

(3) Completed and approved Production Baseline.

3. System Engineering/Program Management IPT Activities: Preparation for ADE-3

a. Update technical management content of and ensure system engineering efforts align

with program documentation outlined in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation in Chapter 8;

b. Support execution of all technical management activities for the ADE-2C to ADE-3

portion of the Obtain Phase outlined in Chapter 2;

c. Finalize and manage product baseline; and,

3-33

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. Review the status of Certifications required for the system or key subsystems. (e.g.,

airworthiness, frequency spectrum, aviation engineering, naval engineering, safety,

weapons, etc).

Intentionally Left Blank

3-34

COMDTINST M5000.10G

G. SELC IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE STAGES

ITR Initial Technical Review PDR: Preliminary Design Review PRR-I: Production Readiness Review - Initial

SPR Study Plan Review CDR: Critical Design Review PRR-L: Production Readiness Review - InitialLow Rate

SAR Systems Analysis Review IRR 1: Integration Readiness Review SIL level OTRR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PPR Program Planning Review IRR 2: Integration (System) Test Readiness Review PRR-F: Production Readiness Review - InitialFull Rate

SDR System Definition Review SIL : Systems Integration Lab ORR: Operational Test Readiness Review

PIR: Post Implementation Review

ALF with SELC (CG-Focused)

DefinitizedDesign

System Requirement

Definition

(FunctionalBaseline)

Obtain Produce/Deploy

& Support

Preliminary Design

(Allocated Baseline)

CDRSDR PDR

Acquisition Phases / ADEs

2C 3 4

CG-Focused SELC Stages

Analyze/SelectNeed

MD 1 2A

PRR-I

SELC Reviews

Needs Analysis

DevelopmentIntegration and Test

IRR 2(ProductBaseline)

Implementation

OTRR

Solution Analysis

Planning

PPRSARSPRITR IRR 1 PRR-L PRR-F ORR

Operations, Maintenance &

Disposition

PIR

Figure 3-11: Produce/Deploy and Support Phase ADE-3 to ADE-4

1. Overview (Implementation and Operations and Maintenance Stages)

a. Scope: The SELC Implementation and Operations & Maintenance stages correspond

to the Produce/Deploy and Support Phase between ADE-3 and ADE-4 of the ALF.

b. Objectives

(1) Implementation: Complete the SELC PIR; and,

(2) Operations and Maintenance: Deploy, operate and maintain system.

2. Post ADE-3 Implementation

a. Entrance Criteria Include:

(1) Program is already in Implementation Stage;

(2) ADE-3 ADM issued for continuance of Implementation Stage; and,

(3) Signed ORR completion letter.

3-35

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Post ADE-3 Implementation Stage Activities

Include (If assigned):

(1) Support the PM and Sponsor with Produce/Deploy & Support Phase activities

as defined in Chapter 2;

(2) Conduct Production Acceptance Testing and Production Quality Testing for

items in Production.

(3) Conduct FOT&E (if applicable)

(4) Finalize SE PIR planning to support IOC

(5) Conduct SE PIR; and,

Note: A SELC PIR must be conducted normally 6 to 12 months after IOC or as

directed by ADM. For Guidance, see the USCG PIR template and instructions

found at the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site.

(6) Maintaining configuration control and updating system documentation.

c. Implementation Stage Expected Outcomes Include: Successful completion of the

SELC PIR

3. Operation and Maintenance (Operate and maintain system and conduct the SE PIR)

a. Entrance Criteria for Operation and Maintenance Includes:

(1) ADE-3 ADM has been issued; and,

(2) The system has been fielded to at least one or more sites, or has achieved IOC.

b. SE or Program Technical Lead Operation and Maintenance Stage Activities

Include (if assigned):

(1) Track system performance and address issues;

(2) Train operators and maintainers; and,

(3) Perform Continuous Monitoring of Security Controls (RMF Step 6).

c. Operations and Maintenance Stage Expected Outcomes Include: Successfully

transition system to responsible Sustainment Program Manager

4. System Engineering/Program Management IPT Activities Include: Preparation for

ADE-4 (Transition to Sustainment).

a. Update technical management content of and ensure system engineering efforts align

with program documentation outlined in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle

Documentation in Chapter 8;

b. Support execution of all technical management activities for the Produce, Deploy,

Support Phase outlined in Chapter 2;

3-36

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Assess status of certification and authorizations for naval engineering, aviation

engineering, frequency spectrum, etc.;

Intentionally Left Blank

3-37

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

3-38

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 4. REQUIREMENTS LIFE CYCLE

A. OVERVIEW

1. The ability for the USCG to effectively execute its missions in the future is dependent

upon a healthy and sustainable requirements life cycle. Each element of the requirements

life cycle plays an important role including: identifying mission and capability gaps;

identifying and assessing the mission threat environment; stating the mission need for a

materiel solution; developing system operational requirements; translating operational

requirements to specifications and crafting executable contract statements of work (SOW);

evaluating fielded new assets or systems; and responding to operational analysis of fielded

systems.

2. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide an overview of the requirements life cycle

activities and artifacts within the Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (CG-

ALF). Previous versions of the MSAM were the source of USCG policies and processes

for all aspects of the CG-ALF. The MSAM in conjunction with Reference (d) define the

CG-ALF, but the processes for different aspects of the CG-ALF are now defined by the

functional process owners and covered under separate commandant instructions. In the

case of identifying USCG capability gaps and the development of operational requirements

documents in alignment with the CG-ALF, the policy is the responsibility of Commandant

(CG-PAE) for Mission Analysis (MA) and Commandant (CG-771) for operational

requirements generation. The MA process is defined in Mission Analysis Policy,

COMDTINST 5280.1 (series) and the operational requirements generation process is

defined in Reference (f).

Note: For the most current information and guidance on mission analyses and operational

requirements generation contact Commandant (CG-PAE) and Commandant (CG-771),

respectively.

3. Commandant (CG-7) is the designated Component Requirements Executive (CRE)

responsible for the Coast Guard’s operational requirements generation and management

processes and artifacts in accordance with Reference (f) and is a principal member of the

DHS Joint Requirements Council (JRC).

B. MISSION ANALYSIS (MA)

1. Commandant (CG-PAE) conducts Mission Analysis (MA), in support of DCO and DCMS,

to identify mission system capability gaps, inform strategies, policies, operations, tactics,

and support strategic resource prioritization decisions. The MA process evaluates how well

the Coast Guard is organized, trained, and equipped to support Coast Guard missions;

aligns to USCG and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agency goals, strategies and

policies; and meets the Coast Guard’s strategic goals (e.g., availability, employment

standards, training levels, etc.).

2. Mission Analysis Report (MAR) documents the major current and future gaps or

limitations of performing a Coast Guard mission. MARs provide an in-depth assessment of

4-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

how the ongoing and forecasted environmental, economic, and operational trends

combined with internal service factors will impact future mission performance. For these

reasons, MARs can inform the development, execution, or modification of service

strategies, plans, polices, program management activities, operations, training, and tactics.

The MAR is a foundational link between the Coast Guard mission programs and the

development of pre-acquisition documents (e.g., Capability Analysis Study Plan (CASP),

Capability Analysis Report (CAR), and Mission Needs Statement (MNS)).

C. COAST GUARD OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT

1. Capability Analysis Report (CAR)

a. The CAR is a DHS required document submitted to the DHS Joint Requirements

Council (JRC) to document a capability assessment of USCGs ability to fulfill a

mission, objective, or function. The CAR provides traceability between strategic

guidance, operational missions and objectives, threat, environment assessments, and

hazards and necessary capabilities. Through Capability Analysis (CA), the CAR

provides recommendations for materiel and/or non-materiel approaches to mitigate

capability gaps/overlaps and supports the development of Non Materiel Change

Recommendations (NMCRs) and/or a materiel focused MNS.

b. The development of the CAR is the responsibility of the Sponsor with support from

Commandant (CG-771) and members of an Integrated Product Team (IPT) to ensure

broad support and coordination of the document throughout the organization. CARs

are submitted to the JRC for validation in accordance with References (f) and (i).

Additional information about CAR development is found in References (f) and (i)

and CAR templates are available from Commandant (CG-771).

Note: The JRC validation process may take 80 business days (approximately 16

weeks). It is critical that Sponsors account for this time in their schedules.

2. Mission Need Statement (MNS)

a. The MNS provides a high-level description of the mission need, whether from a

current or impending gap, based on business-case planning. The MNS outlines the

concept of the materiel solution to fill the gap and provides high level information on

acquisitions/types of acquisition that could provide that capability.

b. The Sponsor develops the MNS in sufficient detail for reviewers to understand the

need for the capability. The Sponsor is supported by Commandant (CG-771) and an

IPT to ensure broad coordination in the development of the MNS.

c. The MNS is prepared and validated, in accordance with References (f) and (i),

during the Need Phase of the Coast Guard Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (CG-

ALF) to support ADE-1 in accordance with Reference (b). A guide to MNS

development and formatting is provided in References (f) and (i) and a MNS

template is available from Commandant (CG-771). After DHS JRC validation, the

MNS is approved by CAE after clearance in the Coast Guard, then sent to the ADA

at DHS for final approval.

4-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: The JRC validation process requires 80 business days (approximately 16

weeks). It is critical that Sponsors account for this time in their schedules.

3. Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

a. The CONOPS describes a proposed asset, system, or capability in terms of how it

will fulfill the user requirements, its relationship to existing assets, systems,

capabilities or procedures, and the ways it will be used in actual operations or

business processes. The CONOPS identifies the asset, system, or capability

characteristics from the viewpoint of any individual or organizational entity that will

use or who will operate or interact directly with it.

b. In accordance with Reference (f), an initial CONOPS may be initiated during the

Need Phase of the CG-ALF to help develop the P-ORD (initial set of operational

requirements). The initial CONOPS must be revised, finalized, and validated as the

program CONOPS during the Analyze/Select Phase of the CG-ALF to support the

development of the program ORD prior to ADE-2A.

c. The Sponsor is responsible for the development of the initial and the final CONOPS

supported by Commandant (CG-771) and the CONOPS IPT to ensure broad

coordination. After DHS JRC validation, the final CONOPS is approved by

Commandant (CG-7) after clearance within the Coast Guard. More information on

development of the CONOPS and formatting is provided in References (f) and (i).

Note: The initial CONOPS is an internal Coast Guard document developed to

support the development of the P-ORD. The initial CONOPS does not require JRC

validation.

Note: The JRC validation process requires 80 business days (approximately 16

weeks). It is critical that Sponsors and Program Managers account for this time in

their schedules.

4. Preliminary Operational Requirements Document (P-ORD)

a. The initial set of operational requirements may be initiated early in the Need Phase

of the CG-ALF and documented in a P-ORD as required by References (f) and (i).

The P-ORD is derived from the MNS and initial CONOPS, and describes the

mission related objectives and operational capabilities that are desired in the system

solution. From an acquisition program perspective the P-ORD represents the

“unconstrained scope” version of operational requirements for a new system.

b. The P-ORD is required to initiate the AA/AoA and informs the preliminary

boundaries of the program. The P-ORD enables the major acquisition planning

initiatives which occur during the Analyze/Select phase of the CG-ALF to include

the system engineering, test and evaluation, integrated logistics support as well as

early development of critical artifacts to include the Life Cycle Cost Estimate

(LCCE), Integrated Government Schedule, staffing and resource plans.

c. The Sponsor is responsible for the development of the P-ORD supported by

Commandant (CG-771) and an ORD development or Requirements IPT.

4-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: Members of the Commandant (CG-9) acquisition community (e.g.,

Commandants (CG-926, CG-93 PM, CG-924), Interdependent Program PMs, etc.)

and the Engineering Technical Authorities representatives (e.g., Commandants (CG-

1, CG-4, CG-6) must be active members of the ORD IPT because as the IPT evolves

the P-ORD into the ORD, the result must be cost-constrained and executable (from

an acquisition and technical perspective). The IPT should guard against the ORD

becoming too detailed, (i.e., a “de facto” specification).

d. The P-ORD requirements parameters are briefed to the Executive Oversight Council

(EOC) prior to final approval by the Sponsor. The brief should include the analysis

supporting the expected level of performance documented in the P-ORD. In cases

where Commandant (CG-7) is not the Sponsor, Commandant (CG-7) must endorse

the P-ORD before the Sponsor approves the document. The P-ORD will then be

provided to the Coast Guard Chief Acquisition Officer, Commandant (CG-9) for

acceptance and use in beginning several required Analyze/Select Phase activities

such as the AA/AoA and the Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE). The P-ORD will

serve as a key starting point for developing the ‘cost constrained’ first version of the

ORD required for ADE-2A.

Note: The P-ORD is an internal Coast Guard document and does not require JRC

validation.

5. Operational Requirements Document (ORD)

a. Operational requirements are refined, finalized, and validated during the

Analyze/Select Phase of the CG-ALF and documented in the ORD to support ADE-

2A and ADE-2B. More information on development of the Operational

Requirements is included in References (f) and (i).

b. In addition to operational effectiveness and suitability the operational requirements

should emphasize operational resiliency which indicates the capability of the system

(an IT system or one containing IT elements) to accomplish its mission even while

withstanding a robust cyber threat environment.

c. The ORD specifies Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) which represent those

system capabilities or characteristics considered essential for successful mission

accomplishment. KPPs should overcome selected capability gaps from the MNS and

CONOPS and be linked to the most important missions and organizational goals of

the USCG and DHS. KPP designation and performance parameter selection are the

responsibility of senior Coast Guard management and are of significant interest to the

ADA. KPPs are tracked in the preliminary and final versions of the APB. Failure to

meet any KPP threshold results in a program “breach” and initiates a validation of the

organizational need of the system or program. Because KPPs are critical to

development, management and evaluation efforts of critical system capabilities, they

are to be selected carefully, and specified with operationally realistic values and/or

ranges. The ORD should normally contain a limited number (four or five) of KPPs

that capture the minimum number of parameters needed to reach the overall desired

mission capabilities. For more information on KPPs and operational requirements

development see Reference (f).

4-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. As an acquisition document, the ORD may require changes after ADE-2A due to

mission changes, or other factors such as cost, schedule, and performance tradeoffs,

technological maturity, funding limitations, Acquisition Decision Memorandum

direction, or other external events. Any proposed changes to an approved ORD are to

be presented to the EOC prior to routing through the ORD approval process by the

Sponsor’s Representative supported by Commandant (CG-771). See References (f),

and (i) for further directions on ORD changes and updates.

Note: The JRC validation process requires 80 business days (approximately 16

weeks). It is critical that Sponsors and Program Managers account for this time in

their schedules.

6. Document Sequencing

a. The effectiveness of each element within the requirements life cycle is dependent on

its predecessor. A sound and defendable MNS is dependent on the completeness and

coherency of the CAR, a well written ORD needs a well thought out and complete

CONOPS and MNS, the Specification and SOW are dependent on a clear and well

written ORD. As requirements become defined in more detail, they need to maintain

clear traceability to their predecessor documents.

b. Although operational requirements documents do not have to follow a strict linear

progression, it is particularly important to recognize the interdependent relationship

between developing a CONOPS and ORD and other related acquisition artifacts

(e.g., Alternative Analysis, Life Cycle Cost Estimate, etc.).

c. The CAR is the most common starting point to document necessary capabilities. In

some cases, a CAR may result in a combination of materiel and non-materiel

approaches.

d. A MNS leads to an initial CONOPS which is both an analysis tool and a document

that describes how an asset, system, or capability will be employed and supported in

response to a gap identified in the MNS. An initial CONOPS may be initiated during

the Need Phase of the CG-ALF to help develop the P-ORD (initial set of operational

requirements). Both the initial CONOPS and P-ORD are necessary to inform the

Alternatives Analysis (AA)/Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Any delay in the

completion of the initial CONOPS and P-ORD will delay the initiation of the

AA/AoA which should occur as soon as possible after ADE-1. As a materiel solution

alternative is selected out of the completed AA/AoA and briefed during the SAR, the

initial CONOPS is revised, finalized, and validated as the program CONOPS during

the Analyze/Select Phase of the CG-ALF. The final CONOPS and P-ORD support

development of the ORD in preparation for ADE-2A of the CG-ALF.

e. Upon completion of the Solution Analysis Review (SAR), which reviews the

AA/AoA recommendations, the CONOPS is finalized and the operational

requirements are defined in the ORD “version 1.0” to support the program ADE-2A.

The ORD may be updated as necessary through ADE-2B but should be assessed for

update prior to ADE-2C, and ADE-3. The ORD will be either updated or formally

confirmed as “still current” no later than ADE-3.

4-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS

1. Specifications are not part of the operational requirements generation process, but are

derived from operational requirements.

Note: Go to Chapter 5 for more information on Specification and Statement of Work

(SOW) development.

2. The ORD, along with the CONOPS, provides a bridge between the top level capability

needs spelled out in the MNS and the detailed technical requirements found in the

performance specification that ultimately define the development of the system.

3. System specifications are developed by translating ORD requirements and other design

drivers and constraints (e.g., statutes, technical standards and best engineering practices)

into functional and physical requirements (e.g., reliability, maintainability, availability,

etc.).

4. The translated requirements are stated at a level of detail from which industry (contractors)

can respond to and provide a reasonably priced proposal to develop (as well as produce

and deploy) a system design that can be capable of meeting ORD requirements and

technical standards.

5. The PM supported by the ETAs and Sponsor must ensure specifications are traceable back

to the operational requirements.

E. POST IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW (PIR) AND OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

(OA)

1. The DHS PARM “Post Implementation Review Guidance for Acquisition Programs”

provides a description of the PIR alignment to the Operational Analysis required by the

Supplement to Part 7 of OMB Circular A-11, Capital Programming Guide. The DHS PIR

Review Guidance incorporates the results of the Systems Engineering Life Cycle Post

Implementation Review (SELC PIR) and other analysis to capture lessons learned and

identify opportunities to enhance the acquisition process.

Note: For more information on the DHS PIR Guidance for Acquisition Programs, contact

Commandant (CG-924).

2. The SELC PIR is an acquisition review depicted in the DHS and Coast Guard Systems

Engineering Life Cycle conducted by the Sponsor, in conjunction with the Acquisition

Program Manager and Engineering Technical Authorities after IOC.

Note: For more information on the SELC PIR, contact Commandant (CG-924) and see the

Commandant (CG-924) CG portal page at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

3. Operational Analysis as defined in the Supplement to Part 7 of OMB Circular A-11,

Capital Programming Guide, is a method of examining the ongoing performance of an

operating asset investment and measuring that performance against an established set of

cost, schedule, and performance goals.

4-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: Operational Analyses, as indicated here, should not be confused with the OT&E

event Operational Assessment conducted by an Independent Test Agency (ITA) prior to

ADE-2 or ADE-2C.

Intentionally Left Blank

4-7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

4-8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT EXPANDED DISCUSSIONS.

Chapter 5 provides an expanded discussion on different aspects of program management

Table 5-1: Program Management Artifacts and Activities

Activity Page

a. Risk Management (RM) 5-1

b. Alternatives Analysis (AA) 5-1

c. Preferred Solution Recommendation Process 5-4

d. Integrated Government Schedule (IGS) 5-5

e. Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) 5-6

f. Specifications and Statements of Work (SOW) Development. 5-10

g. Draft Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP), Program Input 5-12

h. Logistics Management 5-13

i. Milestone Completion Memorandum 5-14

j. Program Transition Plan (PTP) 5-14

k. Capability Development Plan (CDP) 5-14

l. Program Management Plan (PMP). 5-14

m. Configuration Management (CM) 5-15

n. Program Protection and Cybersecurity 5-16

A. RISK MANAGEMENT.

Note: See Reference (p) for requirements and best practices for risk management.

B. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS (AA)

1. The purpose of the AA is to conduct a series of independent analyses of candidate materiel

solution alternatives to identify and document the most effective resource and time

efficient method of satisfying an identified mission capability gap.

2. Artifacts used to inform the AA include: The AA Study Plan, Capability Development

Plan, Capability Analysis Report, Capability Analysis Report, MNS, Initial CONOPS and

P-ORD inform the AA.

3. The AA must include the following:

a. An assessment of the technical maturity of the capability or asset, and technical and

other risks;

b. An examination of capability, interoperability and other advantages and

disadvantages;

c. A discussion of key assumptions and variables, and sensitivity to change in such

assumptions and variables;

5-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

d. When a considered alternative is an existing capability, asset or prototype, an

evaluation of the relevant safety and performance records and associated costs; and,

e. A calculation of life cycle costs to include:

(1) An examination of likely research and development costs and the levels of

uncertainty;

(2) An examination of likely production and deployment costs and the levels of

uncertainty;

(3) An examination of likely operating and support costs and the levels of

uncertainty;

(4) If they are likely to be significant, an examination of likely disposal costs and

the levels of uncertainty; and,

(5) Any additional measures as the Commandant or the Secretary of the

department in which the Coast Guard is operating determines to be necessary

for appropriate evaluation of the capability or asset.

4. The AA may consider alternatives such as:

a. Modification of existing DHS or USCG systems

b. Procurement or modification of commercially available products, services, or

technologies from domestic or international sources

c. A Joint, DOD, DHS Component, or other Government agency development

program; and,

d. A new Coast Guard unique development program.

Note: In accordance with References (f) and (i), the AA process focuses on the

materiel solution alternatives to satisfy the defined capability gap.

Note: A more extensive Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) may be directed by the ADA

if through market analysis it is determined by the Sponsor that the needed capability

cannot be addressed with current state of the market solutions.

5. Independent Third Party. For the USCG, the AA must be led by an organization

independent of Commandant (CG-93) and the Sponsor such as a federally funded research

and development center, a qualified entity of the DOD, the USCG’s RDT&E Program, or

similar independent organization that has appropriate acquisition experience.

6. Ground Rules and Assumptions. The ground rules and assumptions for the AA are defined

in the CDP. The AA involves the use of trade studies, identification of a rough order of

magnitude (ROM) LCCE for each viable alternative, and a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)

for each viable alternative to establish the Return on Investment (ROI) measure. OMB

Circular A-11 requires a minimum of three viable alternatives to be identified, plus the

status quo solution.

5-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

7. AA Study Plan (AASP) Development. During the Analyze/Select Phase, the AA Study

Plan (AASP) is developed in accordance with the ground rules and assumptions contained

in the CDP and defines the assumptions, scope/bounds, and constraints and may require

certain alternatives to be examined. Review and approval of the AASP will depend on the

program’s scope, size, criticality, and other key factors. Specific elements of the Study

Plan include:

a. Study team, director, and overall resources required;

b. Participating organizations and their roles and responsibilities;

c. Description of Study Scope and methodology;

d. Subject matter experts (including representatives from TAs to ensure adequate

technical completeness of data and accuracy of rules and assumptions for

compliance);

e. Study schedule;

f. AA team interface planning with the CONOPS and concurrent ORD effort; and,

g. The AA review and approval process.

Note: A Study Plan Review (SPR) is held as part of the SELC process to review the

initial plans, assumptions, scope, and methods of analysis for the AA study. The SPR

is conducted prior to commencing the actual AA. DHS PARM is invited to

participate in the SPR. Final approval of the AA Study Plan is by DHS.

8. AA Execution. After AASP approval, the AA begins by assessing identified alternatives

and analyzing the effectiveness, suitability and life cycle cost of each within the framework

of the CONOPS and MNS. The AA develops Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) and

associated Measures of Performance (MOPs) to provide an evaluation framework for the

alternatives. These MOEs and MOPs eventually help form Key Performance Parameters

(KPPs) that are incorporated into the ORD. The analysis results compile effectiveness and

suitability measures balanced with cost to provide a preferred solution alternative(s) in the

final report. The results of the AA are presented as part of the SELC Solution Analysis

Review (SAR).

Note: For information on the development and approval of the AASP and AA Report see

Table 5-2, Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation.

5-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

C. PREFERRED SOLUTION RECOMMENDATION PROCESS

Figure 5-1: Preferred Solution Recommendation Process

1. The Preliminary PM Recommendation is based on AA Report and the PM’s analysis; the PM must prepare a preliminary recommendation on the preferred alternative and present it

(and the completed AA Report) to support a Commandant (CG-9) Acquisition Executive

Review (AER).

Note: An AER is normally conducted prior to the SAR to review the PM’s

recommendation and the AA Report. Contact Commandant (CG-924) to schedule an AER.

2. The PM must conduct the Solution Analysis Review (SAR) and, if successful, prepare a

SAR Completion Letter. (Chapter 3 has amplifying information on the SAR).

3. The PM’s recommended Preferred Solution memo must include the AA Report and SAR

Completion Letter as Enclosures.

Note: If directed by the Coast Guard Chief Acquisition Office (CAO), the PM must

conduct additional AER(s) and/or Executive Oversight Council (EOC) review(s).

4. The Coast Guard CAO must endorse the recommendation;

5-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: If directed by the Chief Acquisition Office (CAO), the PM must conduct AA,

preferred solution, and CAO endorsement reviews with DCO/DCMS and/or the CG ARB.

5. The CAE selects the preferred solution by signature approval of the PM’s Preferred

Solution Memo supported by the CAO’s endorsement. The preferred solution decision

informs the completion of the ORD, PLCCE, PSR and other program documentation,

listed in Table 8-3 Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation.

D. INTEGRATED GOVERNMENT SCHEDULE (IGS)

Note: Contact the Commandant (CG-93TD) for the most up to date IGS Guidebook.

1. The Integrated Government Schedule (IGS) is a fundamental PM management tool to help

execute programs effectively by enabling measurement of program performance (e.g.,

schedule, cost) against an approved baseline. An integrated and reliable schedule can

forecast when major events are expected as well as the completion dates for all activities

leading up to them, which can help determine if the program’s parameters are realistic and

achievable. The schedule is typically developed based on the program’s work breakdown

structure (WBS) to identify all functional activities, their projected durations, criteria for

completion, interdependencies and resources required.

2. An IGS should enable the PM to:

a. Update USCG and DHS leadership on program progress during program reviews and

milestone events;

b. Provide a hierarchal depiction of tasks required to achieve program goals;

c. Provide potential offerors through the contract solicitation with a realistic anticipated

scope and duration of the program. Allow assessment and evaluation of contractor

schedules during source selection;

d. Forecast resource requirements (e.g., staffing, funding, etc..) for each phase of the

acquisition;

e. Detect early indications of a potential program schedule breach;

f. Conduct resource analysis and enable cost and schedule performance metrics to aid

in program tracking and support decision making;

g. Conduct Risk analysis with increased effectiveness in support of the risk

management program.

3. Best practices for developing an IGS:

a. Developed with a suitable level of detail to enable visibility into the status of

program activities to include documentation, Government furnished equipment and

information (GFE/GFI), and other interdependencies;

b. Capable of being summarized to show only the high level program elements and

major activities and deliverables for presentations to leadership;

5-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

c. Integrated to show the linkage between Government tasks, decisions and activities

and significant contractor tasks and activities;

d. Use an automated scheduling tool (e.g., MS Project, MS Project Professional, etc.)

that includes and maintains a baseline schedule. The baseline schedule should be

designated the target schedule and is under configuration management control. The

schedule should be continually monitored so as to reveal when forecasted completion

dates differ from baseline dates and whether schedule variances affect downstream

work. A top level comparison to the baseline should be presented at all program

reviews; and,

Note: PMs should consider timelines for major briefings when developing program

schedules. ADE briefing timelines may extend beyond three calendar months.

Operational Test reports from COMOPTEVFOR usually take over three months

after test completion to be delivered to the program.

e. Follow DHS guidance which instructs managers of acquisition programs to develop

schedules in accordance with the GAO Schedule Assessment Guide.

E. ACQUISITION PROGRAM BASELINE (APB)

The APB is a formal agreement between the PM, CAE, and ADA that establishes a baseline for

the program’s critical cost, schedule, and performance parameters. The scope of the APB encompasses the entire planned execution of the program, and may contain subsections for all

supporting increments (or discrete segments) used to meet the capability gap. By continuously

tracking and measuring actual program performance against this formal baseline, the PM should

be alerted to potential problems, such as cost growth, schedule slip, or requirements creep, giving

the PM the opportunity to take early corrective action. During the approval process the APB is

validated for alignment to the program’s ORD, IGS, and LCCE.

1. Preliminary APB (p-APB). The p-APB serves as the initial program baseline with

parameters derived from the initial PLCCE, ORD, and IGS of the preferred solution

approach from the AA. The p-APB is prepared for CG approval and submitted as

information to DHS to support the ADE-2A decision. The p-APB approved by the CAE at

ADE-2A is considered non-breachable.

2. Final APB (APB). The p-APB is further refined and developed into the final APB, based

on the progress with the Program’s preliminary design. The APB is finalized and

submitted to DHS ADA for approval at ADE-2B. The final APB, once approved, becomes

the formal baseline for program cost, schedule, and performance. This APB is breachable.

3. APB Breach. An APB breach is defined as the inability to meet the threshold value of the

specific parameter outlined in the final APB. Tables 5-2 and 5-3 below contain criteria for

APB Breach data and reporting.

Note: Refer to the APB Template Instructions for building the preliminary and final APB.

5-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Table 5-3: APB Breaches

Key Parameter Basis for Breach

Cost Failure to meet the cost thresholds as defined and structured in the approved APB

Schedule Exceeds threshold schedule parameter as defined in approved APB

Performance Does not satisfy one or more KPPs

Table 5-4: Comparison of Breach Reporting Conditions

Key Parameters DHS Breach

Reporting Criteria

Congressional Breach Reporting Criteria2

Cost1 Exceed Threshold >15% increase over

Threshold >20% increase over Threshold3

Schedule1 Exceed Threshold >180 day delay beyond

delivery Threshold

>365 day delay beyond delivery

Threshold;3

Performance1 Asset or class of assets does not satisfy a KPP

Note 1 APB breach reporting must be at the lowest level of program definition, as defined by the APB, (e.g., at the

program, or discrete segment level).

Note 2 In accordance with Reference (a).

Note 3 CCG Certification of Need Required; CCG delegated this responsibility to VCG via memorandum 5402 dated

16 February 2012.

4. APB Breach Reporting. Figure 5-2, Flow Chart of APB Breach Reporting Procedure,

presents the single reporting process accommodating both breach reporting criteria (DHS

Breach Reporting and Congressional Breach Reporting). The following subparagraphs

provide a written description of Figure 5-2.

a. Potential Breach Notification Activities:

(1) When a potential APB Breach condition(s) exists, the PM drafts an APB

Breach Notification Memo and Remediation Plan.

(2) The APEO submits the initial APB breach package to the EOC Executive

Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)). CG-924 must schedule the EOC brief to

be held as soon as possible (objective: within 5 days) after receipt of the draft

APB Breach package.

Note: Prior to the EOC briefing, recommend the PM and Commandant

(CG-924) coordinate a stakeholder’s meeting with, at a minimum, the PM and

representatives of the Sponsor, Commandant (CG-82) and Commandant

(CG-0951). This meeting is held to ensure stakeholder’s agreement that the APB Breach Notification Memo and Remediation Plan explain the

circumstances of the breach and the proposed corrective action.

5-7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. CAO Breach Acknowledgement.

(1) The PM briefs the EOC on program status to include the APB breach

notification and initial remediation plan (problem, cause, impact and

recommended corrective actions).

(2) The EOC provides a recommendation to the CAO.

(3) If changes are recommended by the EOC, the PM/PEO modifies the breach

package and resubmits to the CAO, as directed; and,

(4) The 30 Day Congressional and PARM notification clock starts when the

Notification Memo is signed by CAO.

c. DCMS Signature Approval.

d. CAE Signature Approval.

e. Submission of the CAE endorsed Breach package to DHS PARM:

(1) Commandant (CG-924) coordinates the submission of the breach CAE

approved breach package to DHS PARM.

Note: The PARM submission ends the submission timeline. The submission

should occur within 30 calendar days of CG CAO breach acknowledgement.

(2) PARM coordinates ADA notification.

Note: The submission of the Breach package to DHS PARM occurs

independently of the congressional reporting process.

f. Congressional Reporting:

Note: Congressional reporting only applies to APB Breaches which meet criteria in

table 5-3 in accordance with Reference (a). See Commandant (CG-925) for

assistance preparing the congressional notification information for Commandant

(CG-82).

(1) Commandant (CG-82) prepares APB Breach Reports and if required, a

Certification of Need to Congress.

(2) CG-82 clears Report, with DHS CFO and Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) prior to VCG approval.

(3) Once approved by the VCG, Commandant (CG-092) transmits Report(s) to

Congress (30 days clock ends).

5-8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 5-2: APB Breach Reporting Process

F. SPECIFICATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF WORK (SOW) DEVELOPMENT

1. While the SELC and its program tailoring become the engineering framework for

managing and implementing the interdisciplinary technical processes, an effective system

solution is dependent on realistic and vetted requirements.

2. At an operational level these needs are documented in the ORD (described in MSAM

Chapter 4). Once a specific need is identified through the ORD, the PM must describe the

requirement(s) such that a system design can be created and evaluated to determine if it

satisfies the USCG need(s).

3. System specifications are developed by translating ORD requirements and other design

drivers and constraints-such as statutes, technical standards and best engineering practices-

into functional and select physical requirements. These translated requirements are stated

at a level of detail from which industry (contractors) can respond to and provide a

reasonably priced proposal to develop (as well as produce and deploy) a system design that

can be presumed capable of meeting ORD requirements (and also necessary technical

standards, etc.) if the specification is fully satisfied. PMs, together with the ETAs and the

5-9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Sponsor must ensure system specifications and lower level requirements trace back to the

ORD, MNS and CONOPS (as well as various applicable technical standards, etc.) using a

requirements traceability matrix (RTM) within an existing requirements management

system (e.g., Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS)).

4. The SOW is a description of work tasks and related activities that are to be performed by

the contractor in order to design, fabricate, integrate, test and create/produce a system

design that complies with the system specifications. The SOW is supposed to reference the

specification rather than spelling out the system’s technical requirements. Together, the

SOW and specification detail the Government’s requirements. How they are written

ultimately impacts the quality of proposals, deliverables and the success of the program.

Consider the following points when drafting these contract sections:

a. Requirements.

(1) The specification and SOW must be drafted to ensure the Coast Guard and

contractor both understand the requirement; therefore;

(2) Avoid ambiguous specifications. “Ambiguous” means written in such a way that it could reasonably be interpreted in at least two different ways — regardless of whether both are correct;

(3) Avoid compound requirements. Ensure all requirements are singular in nature;

(4) Ensure all requirements are clearly traceable to the original requirements or

governing documents;

(5) Do not “borrow” requirements from another specification unless you fully

understand the requirement and its intended application. Too often

specifications are drawn from previous or similar programs, and the stated

requirements are inappropriate or their meaning unknown;

b. Reference Materiel. Read and become familiar with all reference materials (e.g.,

publications, standards, specifications) before incorporating them to ensure all

requirements in these documents apply. If necessary, incorporate only the applicable

portions of referenced material;

c. Work Task Requirements. Work task requirements should be specified in the SOW,

and all data requirements for delivery, format, and content should be in the Contract

Data Requirements List (CDRL) in conjunction with the appropriate Data Item

Description (DID) respectively, with none of the requirements restated in other parts

of the contract;

d. Consistency. Ensure that the SOW and specification are consistent with each other

and all applicable sections of the RFP;

e. Readability. Strive to make the document readable by all parties. Define terms that

have more than one meaning or use. Define acronyms. An index, table of terms, and

definition section are often helpful, but try to avoid multiple cross referencing, which

breaks up the flow of the text and increases the risk of duplication;

5-10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

f. Balance.

(1) Evaluate system performance and support requirements to the maximum extent

possible to determine the right balance and use of commercial/industry

standards or Military/Federal standards.

(2) Consider using Military or Federal standards including DHS and Coast Guard

standards, when they are required to be applied for enhancing commonality,

interoperability or to comply with Coast Guard TA requirements;

(3) Understand the challenges across the life cycle when requiring or allowing use

of commercial software as part of a system acquisition. Restrictions on data

rights and proprietary software can cause significant impacts to program cost

and management complexity when performing upgrades, changes or long term

sustainment activities;

g. Testing. Ensure all requirements are measurable/testable to enable validation that the

capability is delivered as required.

h. Legal Significance.

(1) The specification and SOW have legal significance. They tell potential offerors

what they must do to fulfill the Government’s requirement, constitute the basis for evaluating offers to determine if they satisfy the Government’s needs, and

bind the successful contractor to perform in accordance with the stated

requirements.

(2) Therefore, when developing these documents, consider how effectively the

Government can assess contractor performance when compared to the contract.

(3) Clearly defined requirements must enhance the legal enforceability of the

SOW.

G. SOLICITATION AND SOURCE SELECTION PLANNING, PROGRAM INPUT

Note: For more information on procurement policy go to the Commandant (CG-91) CG portal

site at: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/1/Pages/Home.aspx.

Note: For the procurement process go to the Commandant (CG-91) USCG Acquisition Road

Map (ARM) at: https://cg.CG portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/CGArm.aspx.

1. Major Acquisition Red Team Review. A Red Team Review is an independent review of a

program’s solicitation package by acquisition subject matter experts to improve the quality of the solicitation package. The CAO may determine that Red Team Review should be

accomplished on a selected major (Level 1 or 2) prior to its RFP release. This review must

be funded by the program and coordinated by the PM through Commandant (CG-924), in

accordance with the SOP for Independent Red Team Review of Request for Proposals,

Reference (o). Reference (o) may be found at the CG-924 CG portal site:

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

5-11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

2. Major Acquisition RFP Review. An overview of all major program RFPs (excluding

support service contracts/solicitations) should be briefed to Commandant (CG-9) by the

PM prior to the final RFP release. The brief must include adjudication of Red Team

comments (if a Red team was conducted), verification of the overall soundness of

requirements, assessment of contract(s), alignment to cost constraints, and executability of

the acquisition strategy. The HCA, with CAO concurrence, approves release of all major

program RFPs to industry.

a. To ensure stable requirements, RFPs are not to be released unless the ORD is

approved.

b. Refer to the Commandant (CG-9) CG portal Resources link to, “Acquisition

Regulations, Manuals, and Best Practices” for the latest Coast Guard Practice Guide to Contracting: https://CG

portal2.uscg.mil/units/cg9/Pages/AcquisitionRegulation.aspx.

c. Additionally, DHS offers “A Practical Guide to Source Selection (FQN 488)” at: http://dhsconnect.dhs.gov/org/comp/mgmt/ocpo/TrainingCareerDev/Documents/

3. RFP. The RFP is comprised of the system specification, CDRLs, Section L and M, the

SOW, and the other necessary components of a contract.

4. Source Selection Plan (SSP). The SSP outlines how the program will evaluate proposals

for contract award.

H. LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT

Note: See Reference (h) for logistic planning requirements and best practices.

1. Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP). The ILSP is the formal acquisition management

document that describes the management approach for ensuring the supportability and

sustainability of a future capability. The primary purpose of the ILSP is to describe the

necessary product support activities for each ILS element, the responsibilities assigned for

each element, and the schedule for completing support activities. The ILSP must be

consistent with the information provided in the PMP and AP in order to ensure thorough

and accurate supportability and sustainment planning and execution.

2. Deployment Plan (DP). The DP is the planning document that addresses all areas of asset

deployment related to the acquisition and identifies all required resources to operate and

sustain the new asset or capability when it is delivered to the deployed location. The DP

should be prepared in consultation with all Operating and Support Program Managers who

are likely to participate in deployment efforts, to ensure that all appropriate deployment

issues are addressed. Development of the DP should begin in the middle of the Obtain

Phase and should be approved prior to ADE-2C. Planning considerations include the

timing of deliveries, the order in which new assets or capabilities will be delivered,

facilities/infrastructure, homeport or operating site selection and appropriate environmental

impact analysis, modification of computerized prototypes to create virtual trainers, and (in

many cases) the disposal of old assets as they are replaced by new ones.

5-12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

I. MILESTONE COMPLETION MEMORANDUM

The Milestone Completion Memorandum may be used by PMs to document the accomplishment

of achieving a required capability in its’ initial fielding or production and support phase for the Sponsor and other program stakeholders. These memoranda may be used for confirming events

from the ORD or APB such as initial operational capability (IOC), full operational capability

(FOC), an accomplishment of a Coast Guard Support Date, a deployment of an increment or

segment of capability, or approval of authority to operate/connect a C5IT system to the

production environment. The content of the memorandum may be adjusted as needed to meet the

unique requirements associated with each program. It is submitted by the PM and endorsed at the

APEO or PEO, Commandant (CG-93) level for transmittal to the Sponsor and/or program

support managers.

J. PROGRAM TRANSITION PLAN (PTP)

The PTP sets the requirements and establishes procedures for transition of the acquired

capability to the sustainment community for operations and support. The PTP must identify the

operational and support organizations that will assume management responsibility for controlling

and maintaining the configuration of the products/capabilities. The PTP must be prepared by the

PM with input from the operational and support organizations. The PTP must be endorsed by the

sponsor and the support organization and approved by Commandant (CG-93). An approved PTP

must in place 12 months prior to the planned ADE-4 date.

K. CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (CDP)

The CDP outlines PM and SE activities (in particular the Study Plan Review (SPR) and Solution

Analysis Stage) performed during the Analyze/Select Phase. The CDP is routed through and

endorsed by the technical authorities and the sponsor before being signed by Commandant (CG-

9) and then submitted to DHS for approval. The initial CDP must be submitted and approved by

DHS no later than ADE-1. See the CDP template for directions and guidance on content and

writing of the CDP.

L. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP)

1. The PMP establishes a management framework for the overall management of the

approved acquisition program for the IPTs and provides centralized authority over all

technical, business, and risk management aspects of the program. The Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS) is a component of the PMP and is discussed earlier in this

section.

2. The PMP is initially prepared early in the A/S Phase and is due before ADE-2A. The PMP

must be updated (at a minimum the Integrated Government Schedule and other substantive

changes) to support the program’s ADE reviews.

3. Interdependent programs must be identified in the PMP regardless of program level

designation (i.e.; major, non-major) and phase (i.e.; Need, Analyze/Select, Obtain, P/D/S)

5-13

COMDTINST M5000.10G

and will address shared IPTs and key program documents. The receiving program’s PMP must address how the interdependency and interfaces will be managed to ensure that the

delivered products meet the requirement and schedule of the receiving program.

M. CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

Note: See Reference (m) and the Configuration Manager’s Handbook for requirements and best

practices for configuration management.

1. Configuration Control Board (CCB). A CCB is chartered and chaired by the PM and is the

primary working group to manage the product configuration during acquisition (denoted as

product CCB). Commandant (CG-444) must provide training and assistance to establish

this board. The CCB must be chartered as soon as the Functional Baseline for the product

is established or approved.

a. For products in both production and sustainment, changes approved by the product

CCB that will impact fielded assets must be referred to the cognizant Coast Guard

CCB, in accordance with Reference (m).

b. Product/support changes approved by the cognizant Coast Guard CCB that will

prompt major changes to acquisition, operational or sustainment activities and

associated Coast Guard costs must also be reviewed and approved by the PEO [for

acquisition impacts] and the Executive Oversight Council (EOC) [for all impacts]

prior to implementation. The EOC fulfills the Executive Level CCB responsibilities

(for configuration management) in accordance with Reference (m).

2. Engineering Change Proposal (ECP). An ECP is a management tool used to propose a

configuration change to a Configuration Item (CI) and its government-baselined

performance requirements and configuration documentation during an acquisition

program.

a. ECP Limitations for Contracts. The PMs are not authorized to approve engineering

change proposals (ECPs) and non-engineering (contract) change proposals (CCPs)

that increase the contract costs, extend the Commandant (CG-9) approved schedule,

or increase total acquisition costs. Within the program’s APB parameters, the PM

may, with Commandant (CG-93) approval exercise the following exceptions:

(1) Approved Value Engineering Change Proposals that provide a reduction in life

cycle cost;

(2) Safety – e.g., changes required to eliminate hazards to equipment or personnel

as officially documented by organizations such as Operational Test and

Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR), or USCG Technical Authorities,

Commandants (CG-1), (CG-4), and (CG-6);

(3) Technical issues/defects – e.g., correction of defective specifications, defective

or unavailable Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), defective or

unavailable Government Furnished Information (GFI);

5-14

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(4) Unavailable Contractor Furnished Equipment – e.g., “or equal” form, fit, and

function replacement of Government specified contractor furnished equipment

or components that are no longer available;

(5) Testing and trials deficiencies – e.g., necessary component or system

modifications derived from developmental or operational testing;

(6) Statutory and regulatory changes that are not accompanied by funding; and,

(7) Delay and disruption due to non-excusable government activities.

b. ECP Management Budgeting. PMs must include a change order account in their

budgets and spend plans for all production contracts. As the account is used, the PM

must notify Commandant (CG-93) when 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of the change

order budget has been obligated or as directed by Commandant (CG-93). Changes

that provide technical enhancements or take advantage of emerging technology must

be managed within the change order budget and must be approved by Commandant

(CG-93) prior to implementation. The Configuration Management Plan (CMP)

should demonstrate understanding of the overall plan to manage the configuration of

the assets and their impacts to Total Ownership Cost (TOC).

3. CCB Charter. A CCB charter is used to formally establish the CCB for a program and

outlines CCB members, roles, and responsibilities. A sample template for a CCB Charter is

provided on the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

4. Configuration Management Plan. The purpose of the CMP is to communicate the

processes and procedures to be used by the program to implement Configuration

Management (CM) policy and defines any program-specific differences implemented to

satisfy and/or exceed the requirements of the policy. A CMP must be developed and

implemented for all major (Level 1 and 2) and non-major (level 3) programs. The CM

planning information must be tailored, as appropriate, for the specific acquisition. The CM

Plan is developed and approved in the Analyze/Select Phase and is approved prior to ADE-

2A. Appendix A of Reference (m) includes a checklist for CMP development and

additional guidance is available provided in the CMP Template.

N. PROGRAM PROTECTION AND CYBERSECURITY

Note: For information on cybersecurity implementation, contact (CG-93) Director of

Cybersecurity staff at: HQS-DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

1. Program Protection and Cybersecurity within the ALF/SELC. PMs are responsible for

executing the functions of program protection across the full acquisition life cycle and

ensuring that protection decisions are made in the context of program cost, schedule, and

performance considerations. The overarching relationship of Program Protection to the

various security disciplines and processes is indicated in Figure 5-3 Program

Protection/Cybersecurity the Broader Picture. Building on the growing system maturity,

program protection functions are validated at each of the following points in the life cycle:

5-15

COMDTINST M5000.10G

a. Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) Reviews, starting with the Study Plan

Review (SPR). See the PSTP template review criteria worksheets for further

elaboration on specific Systems Engineering Review criteria.

b. Systems Engineering (SE) analyses that support preparation for each Acquisition

Decision Event (ADE).

c. Development and release of solicitations and Request for Proposal (RFP)s where

security requirements are translated for contract development or integration

activities.

d. All activities and documents supporting System Authorization (SA) and Authority to

Operate (ATO).

Figure 5-3: Program Protection/Cybersecurity the Broader Picture

2. Program-Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management (P-CARM). The P-CARM is an

IPT formed to help ensure that cybersecurity and resilience is addressed throughout the

ALF, SELC, and T&E processes.

Note: Reference (u) directs each DHS component to establish a Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM). The C-CARM is chaired by

the component CISO (Commandant (CG-62)) and membership should be representative of

all cybersecurity stakeholder organizations as defined by Reference (u). Once established,

the USCG C-CARM will be the PM’s and P-CARM’s one-stop-shop for cybersecurity

issue resolution within the Coast Guard.

5-16

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: Prior to each ADE, anticipate a cybersecurity review by the Component -

Cybersecurity Acquisition Risk Management IPT (C-CARM) and if directed, support the

C-CARM engagement with the DHS Information Safeguarding & Risk Management

Council (ISRSMC).

Note: Until the C-CARM is established, PM’s coordinate and maintain functional

relationships directly with each of the cybersecurity stakeholder organizations to resolve

cross directorate and process issues.

a. In accordance with Reference (u), in the event a P-CARM IPT is not established, the

C-CARM IPT must ensure all activities required of the P-CARM IPT, are accounted

for and accomplished;

b. The P-CARM should be formed by the PM during the early Analyze/Select phase;

Note: The P-CARM IPT function may be incorporated into an acquisition program

IPT.

c. The P-CARM is comprised, at minimum, in accordance with Reference (u), of the

following members: Information System Owner (ISO)/Information Technology

Program Manager (ITPM), Component CISO representative, program ISSO,

Information Owner (IO)/Data Steward, Information Systems Security Developer,

program T&E Manager, Independent Test Agent, data analyst, Information System

Security Engineer (ISSE), Information Systems Security Architect, Commandant

(CG-771) representative, Commandant (DCMS-34) representative, Commandant

(CG-924), as needed, and a Commandant (CG-925) representative;

d. The P-CARM may interact with the C-CARM IPT and provide their assistance, as

needed, in developing the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) and identifying and

mitigating cybersecurity risks; and,

e. The P-CARM, in coordination with the PM and the C-CARM IPT, monitor

cybersecurity POA&Ms on a monthly basis to ensure completion of all action items.

3. Program Protection. The USCG is obligated to execute Program Protection by the 2017

DoD/DHS and U.S. Coast Guard Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding

Cooperation on Cybersecurity and Cyberspace Operations. Program Protection planning

identifies critical program information (CPI), analyses mission critical functions and

components, system vulnerabilities as well as appropriate security controls under the Risk

Management Framework (RMF) and supports the background analysis to support multiple

security risk mitigation measures. The following are functions and activities within

Program Protection:

a. Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM). A systematic process for managing the

risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted functions, or

otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution,

installation, operation, or maintenance of a system by identifying susceptibilities,

vulnerabilities and threats throughout the “supply chain” and developing mitigation

strategies to combat those threats whether presented by the supplier, the supplied

5-17

COMDTINST M5000.10G

product and its subcomponents, or the supply chain (e.g., initial production,

packaging, handling, storage, transport, mission operation, and disposal).

b. Trusted Systems and Networks Analysis (TSN Analysis). The TSN Analysis is

completed by a program by conducting a Criticality Analysis (CA), Threat

Assessment (TA), Vulnerability Assessment (VA), Risk Assessment (RA), and

selection of Protection Measures/a list of Countermeasures.

c. Critical Program Information (CPI). Identification and Analysis of CPI within a

program will go through 3 stages of maturity: Potential CPI, Candidate CPI, and

Final CPI (for more guidance see the CG-924 CG portal site)

4. Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is the prevention of damage to, unauthorized use of, or

exploitation of, and, if needed, the restoration of electronic information and

communications systems and the information contained therein to ensure confidentiality,

integrity, and availability. Cybersecurity encompasses the following activities.

Note: External, interdependent, or government furnished components that may be outside

the PMs direct control must be considered and accounted for in program protection

decisions.

a. Risk Management Framework (RMF). The RMF is a multi-level approach to risk

management that addresses security and privacy risk at the organization level, the

mission/business process level, and the information system level. The RMF is broken

down into 6 official steps. The RMF also has a Prepare step prior to Step 1 and

between each consecutive Step (see NIST SP 800-37 rev 2).

b. The Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) is used to track RMF

during the Program Protection process. eMASS is a DoD-sponsored, automated

system developed to:

Note: For questions about eMASS, contact the Commandant (CG-93) Director of

Cybersecurity staff at HQS-DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil.

Note: External, interdependent, or government furnished components that may be

outside the PMs direct control must be considered and accounted for in program

protection decisions.

(1) Manage the RMF workflow process;

(2) Identify key related decision points; and,

(3) Generate security control lists needed in RMF implementation. The tool helps

implement Security Controls, baselines, Security Requirements Guides

(SRGs), Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs), Control

Correlation Identifiers (CCIs), implementation and assessment procedures,

overlays, common controls, and other associated cybersecurity and risk

management efforts. The use of an automated tool to manage RMF is highly

encouraged in accordance with Reference (j).

5-18

COMDTINST M5000.10G

5. Program Protection Plan. The Coast Guard Program Protection Plan (PPP) is a tool

available to the PM, which helps organize Program Protection activities. The initial PPP

must be submitted and approved no later than ADE-2A and ideally prior to PPR. The PPP

must be updated for subsequent SE reviews and ADEs up to ADE-4 or in the event that

new threats/vulnerabilities, or new systems/sub-systems or modifications are introduced to

the existing system. Find the PPP template and Program Protection Plan Navigation Guide

at the CG-924 CG portal site: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

6. Acquisition Cybersecurity Plan (ACSP): The ACSP reflects the program’s long-term plan,

strategy, approach for, and implementation of cybersecurity throughout the program life

cycle. The ACSP is a tool for PMs, Authorizing Officials (AO) and relevant review and

approval authorities to plan for, identify, assess, mitigate, and manage risks as systems

mature. The initial ACSP must be submitted and approved no later than ADE-2A and

ideally by PPR. The ACSP must be updated for subsequent SE reviews and ADEs up to

ADE-4 or in the event that new threats/vulnerabilities, or new systems/sub-systems or

modifications are introduced to the existing system. Find the ACSP template at the CG-

924 CG portal site: https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx.

Intentionally Left Blank

5-19

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

5-20

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 6. PLANNING PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EXECUTION

PROCESS / ACQUISITION LIFE CYCLE FRAMEWORK

ALIGNMENT

A. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief description of the relationship between the Coast

Planning Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process, Reference (l), and the

Acquisition Life Cycle Framework (ALF) as defined in this Manual.

B. PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, BUDGETING, AND EXECUTION (PPBE)

The Coast Guard Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process managed

by Commandant (CG-8) aligns the development and execution of the budget. This process

identifies and prioritizes the Coast Guard’s strategic needs, resources and risks to support the

development and execution of plans and budgets within the five year Future Years Homeland

Security Program (FYHSP).

Note: For information on the Coast Guard PPBE process see Reference (l) and contact the

program’s assigned Commandant (CG-821) Reviewer.

PPBE / ALF Alignment Diagram is on the next page.

Intentionally Left Blank

6-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Figure 6-1: PPBE / ALF Alignment

C. PPBE / MSAM MATERIEL DECISION PROCESS ALIGNMENT

The VCG (CAE), through the Commandant’s Executive Decision Making (EDM) Process,

COMDTINST 5420.40, defines two executive decision fora within the USCG; the EDM decision

processes (includes PPBE) and the acquisition review process as defined in this Manual. The

decision to apply resources (appropriated funds) to resolve a capability gap is made as part of the

PPBE process and translated to the acquisition process (MSAM) by the recognition that a

materiel decision has been made.

Note: The Materiel Decision (MD) is not a formal event. It is a recognition by the Sponsor and

acquisition community that the Coast Guard has elected, through the PPBE process, to formally

request a resource allocation or has received funding to fill a capability gap as defined in a

Capability Analysis Report (CAR) and meets the criteria of an acquisition. This recognition

(typically early in the Need phase) by the Sponsor and acquisition community triggers the

preparation for ADE-1.

6-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 7. ACQUISITION REVIEW PROCESS (ARP)

A. INTRODUCTION

The acquisition review process (ARP) is the administrative process which provides senior

leaders insight into the execution of acquisition programs and the opportunity to assess the

program’s relative maturity and readiness to continue to move forward within the Acquisition

Life Cycle Framework (ALF). The ARP aligns the review fora to meet the requirements of the

different levels of organizational oversight in support of ALF knowledge-based Acquisition

Decision Events (ADEs), program annual reviews, or directed interim reviews. The ARP has two

supportive review processes, the integrated USCG/DHS ARP and the USCG ARP (Annual &

Level 2 delegated).

B. USCG /DHS ARP

The USCG/DHS ARP supports ADE decisions and reviews directed by the DHS ADA.

Figure 7-1: USCG and DHS Reviews Supporting the ARP

C. USCG ARP

The USCG ARP supports annual reviews, Level 2 delegated programs and CAE directed

reviews.

Figure 7-2: USCG ARP Annual and Delegated Program Reviews

7-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. ARP REVIEW PLANNING

1. This section is intended help the PM build the ARP planning timelines into their program

schedules.

a. Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site has the current ADE briefing slide template.

The Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site is found at

https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx;

b. Documents should have all USCG approvals complete prior to the ADE EOC

review;

c. The CG ARB will not be held and DHS ARB will not be scheduled until all required

approved documents are submitted to DHS PARM, uploaded into the DHS Data

Source System and an electronic copy sent to Commandant (CG-924); and,

d. To schedule or request changes to CG ARB, DCO/DCMS, or EOC reviews, contact

the CG ARB/EOC Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) at HQS-SMB-CG-

9-Acquisition-Executive-Secretary@uscg.mil.

2. Long Term ARP planning (Greater than 12 months).

a. PMs should account for ADE and Annual ARP timelines in their program’s

Integrated Government Schedule (IGS); and,

Note: For ARP long term schedule planning, the PM should anticipate one calendar

month for each of the EOC, CG ARB, and DHS-ARB to accommodate senior leader

scheduling.

b. For ADE reviews, the DCO/DCMS, Acquisition Review Team (ART)-In and ART-

Out reviews must occur within the three month planning period allotted for the EOC,

CG ARB and DHS-ARB.

Note: For Annual reviews, ART-In and ART-Out reviews are not required.

3. Near term ARP planning (Less than 12 months).

a. The Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) coordinates the CG-93 signed

Acquisition Program Review Schedule (APRS) which provides a 12 month

projection of CG ARB and DHS-ARB planned reviews;

(1) Find the APRS (updated monthly) on the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal

site at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx;

(2) The Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) begins coordinating the

specific date for the EOC, DCO/DCMS, and CG ARB normally three calendar

months prior to the APRS planning month for the CG ARB;

7-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

b. The PM should anticipate completing a VCG primer prior to the CG ARB;

Note: The VCG staff transmits the task to complete the VCG meeting primer to the

PM through TMS approximately 2 weeks (10 business days) prior to the scheduled

date of the CG ARB.

c. DHS ART-In, ART Out, and DHS-ARB dates are coordinated by the PM and

Commandant (CG-924) with the DHS-PARM USCG Liaison;

d. The PM should invite the Commandant (CG-924) program liaison to the pre-EOC

reviews; and,

e. The PM, in their IGS, should account for all necessary pre-EOC briefs (e.g.,

Commandants (CG-93) and (CG-9).

E. ANNUAL CAE PROGRAM REVIEW

1. Reference (c) requires the CAE to conduct component annual program reviews and as

determined by the CAE;

Note: In accordance with Reference (c), the annual LCCE update may be used to inform

the annual CAE program review. To coordinate the annual LCCE update, contact

Commandant (CG-928) six months prior to the planned annual CAE program review at

HQS-DG-CG9283CEEB@uscg.mil.

2. The annual CAE program review template describes the information and slide format for

the annual CAE program review brief;

Note: Find the annual CAE program review template on the Commandant (CG-924) CG

portal site at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx; and,

F. ARP REVIEW FORUMS

1. Executive Oversight Council (EOC)

a. Chartered by the CG-CAO, the EOC is a Coast Guard Flag Officer/Senior Executive

Service (SES) level forum that monitors major risks, addresses emergent issues,

reviews acquisition decision event exit criteria progress, and provides direction to

cross directorate teams as required to support successful acquisition program

execution;

b. The EOC’s primary function is to review and address risks and issues that have the potential to result in significant performance, cost, and/or schedule changes; and,

c. The EOC is chaired by the Coast Guard Chief Acquisition Officer (Assistant

Commandant for Acquisitions (Commandant (CG-9))).

Note: Minutes are taken by the Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) which

includes any EOC decisions and assigned action items.

7-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Table 7-1: EOC Membership

Chair Members

Commandant (CG-9)

/CAO

Commandant (CG-1) Commandant (CG-2) Commandant (CG-4)

Commandant (CG-6) Commandant (CG-7) Commandant (CG-8)

Commandant (CG-91)

(HCA)

Commandant (CG-92)

/DCAO

Commandant (CG-93)

Commandant (CG-092) Commandant (CG-094) Commandant (DOL)

FORCECOM Commandant (CG-5R) Commandant (CG-5P)

CGCYBER

(IT AO)

Commandant (CG-4D)

(PIT/PIT System AO)

2. DCO/DCMS Review

a. The DCO/DCMS review ensures alignment between DCO/DCMS prior to moving

on to the CG ARB.

Note: Minutes are taken by the Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) which

includes any DCO/DCMS decisions and assigned action items.

b. DCO is the Coast Guard’s Capabilities Validation Authority (CVA) and is

responsible for the Coast Guard operational requirements generation and validation

cycle to include documenting and coordinating a clear path from operational need to

entry into the formal acquisition process at Acquisition Decision Event 1 (ADE-1).

c. DCMS is responsible for all facets of life cycle management for Coast Guard assets

and systems including oversight of the Coast Guard’s Engineering Technical

Authorities.

3. Coast Guard Acquisition Review Board (CG ARB)

a. The CG ARB is the USCG’s senior acquisition oversight advisory forum to discuss

acquisition program issues and make recommendations to the CAE (e.g., acquisition

program preparedness for an ADE).

b. The CG ARB reviews Level 1 and Level 2 (major) acquisition programs annually;

Note: Minutes are taken by the Executive Secretary (Commandant (CG-924)) which

includes any CAE decisions and assigned action items.

c. The USCG CAE is the senior CG Acquisition Authority and reviews all programs in

preparation for an ADE in which DHS is the ADA. Upon decision by DHS USM the

CAE is the ADA for CG delegated programs.

Table 7-2: CG ARB Core Members

Chair Members

VCG (CAE) DCMS DCO

CAO EOC Members

7-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

4. Acquisition Review Team (ART)-In/ART-Out

a. The ART reviews are intended to ensure alignment of DHS stakeholders in

preparation for the ARB;

Note: For more information on the ART, see the DHS Acquisition Review Team

(ART) Guidebook.

b. The ART is comprised of the action officers representing the DHS-ARB members;

c. The PM presents the planned DHS-ARB briefing slides;

d. The ART-In should occur prior to the CG ARB to ensure stakeholder alignment

before final CG approval; and,

e. The ART-Out occurs prior to the DHS-ARB to verify completion of any ART-In or

CG ARB action items.

Note: After the ART-Out, the PARM Liaison provides a pre-brief to the DHS-ARB

using the program’s slide presentation.

f. The ART-Out brief may be waived by DHS PARM if no issues remain that need to

be discussed with the PM.

5. DHS-ARB

a. The DHS Acquisition Review Board (ARB) is the departmental executive board that

reviews all Level 1 and Level 2 acquisition programs (unless delegated to the CAE

by the DHS-CAO in writing) for executable business strategy, resources,

management, accountability, and alignment to strategic initiatives and supports the

ADA in determining appropriate direction for the acquisition at ADEs;

b. The ARB conducts systematic reviews of acquisitions to ensure the acquisition

programs are progressing in compliance with the approved Capability Development

Plan (CDP) or APB for their current acquisition phase;

c. ARBs can be convened for non-acquisition decision events such as program reviews;

and,

d. All ARB decisions are documented in Acquisition Decision Memoranda.

Intentionally Left Blank

7-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

7-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

CHAPTER 8. ACQUISITION DOCUMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL

PROCESS

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This chapter provides the PM with a structured approach to facilitate the acquisition

document review and approval process portion of the acquisition documentation life cycle.

2. An acquisition document presents the results of the PM's functional area (e.g., logistics,

risk management) alignment and plan to implement functions in support of the acquisition

program’s cost, schedule, and performance objectives and to procure and deliver assets to

the operational organization.

Note: Go to the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for the document templates and

instructions at https://cg.portal.uscg.mil/units/cg9/2/4/Pages/Home.aspx;

3. The acquisition documentation life cycle is shown in Figure 8-1.

Figure 8-1: Acquisition Document Life cycle

a. The acquisition documentation life cycle begins with functional area planning and

ends with the transition of the PM’s responsibilities to the sustainment PM;

Note: A proven practice is to use the program IPT or specialized IPT to engage

subject matter experts as early as practicable to initiate functional area planning.

b. Acquisition Document Life cycle elements:

(1) Build the functional area document to reflect the functional area alignment and

plans (e.g., logistics, systems engineering, etc.);

(2) Initiate document concurrent clearance and signature approval in accordance

with this Chapter;

(3) Update the document as necessary (or as directed) to reflect the current

acquisition program functional alignment;

(4) Verify functional alignment during the program’s annual review; and,

Note: See the USCG acquisition annual review slides for additional

information.

(5) Transition of the function to sustainment.

8-1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

B. DOCUMENT CONCURRENT CLEARANCE AND APPROVAL PROCESS

Figure 8-2: Concurrent Clearance Review / Signature Clearance Process

1. The PM/IPT Collaboratively Develops the Document

a. The objective of collaboratively developing acquisition documents is to ensure

stakeholder perspectives are represented.

b. The intended outcome of collaboratively developing acquisition documents is to

provide a complete acquisition document ready for IPT Level Review.

2. IPT Level Review

a. The objective of the IPT level review is to ensure the collaboratively developed

document meets the purpose and intent of the document as defined by the template

and is prepared for Office Chief (Matrix) level review;

b. The IPT level review should include, in addition to the chartered IPT members,

representatives from interdependent programs and all offices identified for

concurrent clearance listed on Figures 8-3 and 8-4;

c. The intended outcome of the IPT Level Review is PM/IPT agreement that all issues

raised during the IPT level review have been resolved; and,

d. Unresolvable issues from the IPT review should be elevated to the APEO for

resolution prior to Office Chief (Matrix) concurrent clearance.

8-2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. Office Chief (Matrix) Level Concurrent Clearance Review

a. The objective of the Office Chief (Matrix) level review is to provide a signature

ready document for signature routing;

Note: It is a proven practice during Office Chief (Matrix) level review that each

Office Chief level reviewer inform his or her flag/executive officer (the individual

who will actually sign and approve for their directorate/organization) of any issues

that would prevent signature approval. Concerns identified through engaging the

flag/executive officer should be resolved during Office Chief (Matrix) level review.

b. The Originating Office:

(1) Prepare the document for Office Chief (Matrix) level review;

(a) All IPT level review adjudications are complete;

(b) The document format should be in its final form;

(c) Add line numbers to the entire document for reference during concurrent

clearance; and,

(d) Create a PDF document from the original Word document.

(2) Prepare the TMS package to include:

(a) PM signed Concurrent Clearance Form CG-4590 with the organizations

identified in Figures 8-3 and 8-4 listed on the form;

Note: See the Commandant (CG-924) CG portal site for an example

Form CG-4590 and completion instructions

(b) PDF version of the document;

(c) The standard Commandant (CG-9) comment matrix found on the

Commandant (CG-9) CG portal site.

(d) The PM must not use the phrase (or any statement with the effect of)

“…no response means (or assumes) the office or program concurs….” as

a means to adjudicate nonresponsive required concurrent clearance

reviewers.

(3) Transmit the TMS package to each of the organizations required in Figures 8-3

and 8-4;

Note: The organizations identified in Figures 8-3 and 8-4 are the minimum

concurrent clearance organizations. The PM may add other stakeholders as

appropriate.

Note: For DHS approved documents, relevant DHS organizations are included

in the concurrent clearance review process. Contact Commandant (CG-924) to

transmit the document to DHS PARM for DHS distribution.

8-3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

(4) Allow 15 business days (~3 calendar weeks) for Office Chief (Matrix)

concurrent clearance level review.

c. The PM should expect that the comments from this level of review are approved by

the O6/GS15 level Office Chief.

4. PM/IPT Adjudicated Comments

a. The objective of the PM/IPT adjudication of the Office Chief (Matrix) level

comments is to address all stakeholder comments/issues to ensure that the document

is functionally aligned and prepared for successful signature routing;

b. If a required concurrent clearance reviewer is nonresponsive, the PM must elevate

the issue to the PM’s chain of command for resolution.

c. The PM/IPT should fully address each concurrent clearance comment; and,

Note: It is a proven practice for PMs to document concurrent clearance comment

resolution agreement with each of the reviewing offices using the comment matrix.

d. If the PM/IPT cannot find resolution to a concurrent clearance comment with the

commenting office, the PM must elevate the issue to the PM’s chain of command for

resolution prior to APEO signature endorsement.

Note: If there is not full resolution at Flag/Directorate level, then the comment

adjudication should be elevated to the EOC. Contact Commandant (CG-924) to

schedule an EOC.

5. APEO Signature Endorsement

a. The purpose of the APEO signature endorsement on the document is to validate that

the concurrent clearance comments were adjudicated by the PM/IPT; and,

Note: The PM should refer to Figures 8-3 and 8-4 to verify the document’s signatory and approval signatures.

b. The APEO may approve the document for signature clearance or return the

document to the PM/IPT for further adjudication.

6. Signature Clearance

a. The purpose of signature routing is to gain final signature endorsements for

acquisition documents; and,

b. If during signature clearance, a document signatory raises additional issues with the

document, the APEO must ensure adjudication with the signatory’s O6/GS15

representative or send back to the PM/IPT for a limited concurrent clearance.

Note: The three week requirement for the initial Office Chief (Matrix) level review

does not apply for a limited concurrent clearance initiated to resolve a signature

clearance issue. Recommend a minimum of five business days for a limited

concurrent clearance.

8-4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

7. Documents Only Requiring USCG Approval

a. USCG document approval occurs when the final USCG required signature is

obtained by the PM; and,

Note: Figures 8-3 and 8-4 identify the final approval authority for each document.

b. The PM must upload to the DHS source database.

8. Documents Requiring DHS Approval

a. If DHS approval is required, the Originating Office coordinates with Commandant

(CG-924) the document submission to DHS PARM; and,

b. All documents which require DHS approval must be submitted to DHS-PARM at

least 45 calendar days before the planned ADE.

Note: It is DHS-PARM internal policy not to schedule the DHS ARB until all

program documents required for the review have been provided to DHS-PARM or

uploaded to the DHS source database.

9. Upload to the DHS Source Database

a. The upload to the DHS source database is the preferred method to provide DHS

organizations access to USCG acquisition program documents; and,

b. After document final approval (DHS or USCG), the Originating Office:

(1) Creates an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) file of the document

(Microsoft Word file converted to PDF), with scanned in signature page(s)

attached;

(2) Uploads the PDF document with all signatures to the DHS source database;

and,

(3) Provides a PDF copy of the document with all signatures to Commandant (CG-

924),

C. DOCUMENT VERIFICATION OF CURRENCY AND REVISIONS

This section describes the process to revise acquisition program documents. Most

acquisition documents revisions will occur using the routine update concurrent clearance

and approval process described in paragraph 8-B. There are occasions when acquisition

documentation need to be updated to correct minor or administrative errors.

1. Verification of Currency (Verify Current)

a. The purpose of verifying the currency of acquisition documents is to ensure

stakeholder alignment;

b. The PM must gain concurrence from stakeholders (e.g., IPT and signatory

representatives) that the document reflects the current status of the function; and,

8-5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Note: A proven practice is to document the verification with a memo for the record.

c. The status of each of the program’s required documents will be presented during the

program’s annual brief.

2. Minor Acquisition Document Changes

Note: Operational Requirements documents are revised in accordance with Reference (f).

For Operational Requirements documents, coordinate the change with Commandant (CG-

771) and the program Sponsor’s representative. Commandant (CG-771) may elect to use

the minor acquisition document change process.

a. Minor revisions are usually administrative (e.g., formatting, Reference revisions, or

hyperlink update) or a targeted wording clarification which does not change the

meaning/intent of the original wording.

Note: Contact Commandant (CG-924) if considering minor revisions to an

acquisition document.

b. To manage an acquisition document change as a minor revision, the PM must have

concurrence of the program IPT and Domain APEO.

Note: For DHS Approved documents (excluding operational requirements

documents), the assigned DHS PARM Liaison must also agree that the change is

minor. Contact Commandant (CG-924) to engage the DHS PARM Liaison.

c. To update the acquisition document with minor changes:

(1) Use red italicized font to identify the changes within the document text;

(2) For deletions, change the font to red and strike through the text with a red

single line.

(3) Update the change page with each of the changes made;

(4) Replace the cover page with a new version number in accordance with the

version marking protocol found in sub paragraph 3;

(5) Insert a new signature page for the minor update on top of the original

signature page for the signature of the PM and Domain APEO; and,

Note: For Operational Requirements documents, contact Commandant (CG-

771). If Commandant (CG-771) elects to use the minor update document

process, the Sponsor’s representative (Office Chief) and Commandant (CG-

771) must also sign the document.

(6) The PM must provide a copy of the signed minor updated document to all

original concurrent clearance stakeholders.

Note: For DHS approved documents, contact Commandant (CG-924) to submit

the minor updated document to DHS PARM.

8-6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

3. Document Changes Not Defined as Minor

a. For document changes not defined as minor, use the routine update concurrent

clearance and approval process described in paragraph 8-B.

Note: A proven practice for targeted updates (e.g., review dates, quantity) is to limit

the concurrent clearance review to only the changed elements.

b. Follow the version marking protocol.

4. Version Marking Protocol

a. Version numbers for documents submitted for approval must start with a whole

number (e.g., Version 1.0);

b. Minor updates should increment in tenths (e.g., Version 1.1);

c. Updates requiring routing for concurrent clearance must increase to the next whole

number (e.g., Version 2.0);

d. The document’s version number should be placed in the lower left-hand side and the

date should be placed in the lower right-hand side of the document footer; and,

e. A Version Summary (with Table of Changes) must be included following the

document’s Executive Summary. The Table of Changes must reflect the version

number and date discussed and should be as shown below.

Table 8-1: Version Formats

Version Change Effective Date

Version 1.0 Initial Version 15 Oct 09

Table 8-2: Date Formats

Key Event To Occur: Date Format Convention:

Past History (Actual Date) Use Month and Year, e.g., 10/09

Future Date Use Quarter and Fiscal Year (FY), e.g., 1QFY11

Intentionally Left Blank

8-7

- - - - -

COMDTINST M5000.10G

D. DOCUMENT TABLE

This is a combined document table for ADE-2A through ADE-4.

Note: Document requirements Capability ID Phase and Need Phase are found in Chapter 2.

Table 8-3: Acquisition Life Cycle Documentation

Document Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)

Preparation Approval1

2A 2B 2C 3 4

Alternatives Analysis Study

Plan (AASP) P Study Director

DHS PARM and

CIO

Alternatives Analysis Report

(AA) P Study Director CAE

Preliminary Operational

Requirements Document (P-

ORD) (See Chapter 4)

Sponsor’s Rep. Sponsor

Concept of Operations

(CONOPS) P Sponsor’s Rep.

CG: JRC2/CAE

DHS: ADA

Operational Requirements

Document (ORD) P Sponsor’s Rep.

CG: JRC2/CAE

DHS: ADA

Program Management Plan

(PMP)3 P VC VC VC PM CG-CAO

Integrated Government

Schedule (IGS) Baseline P U U U PM PEO

Manpower Estimate Report

(MER) P VC VC VC

CG-1B3 Funded by Program

CG-1

Manpower Requirements

Determination P VC VC VC U

CG-1B3 Funded by Program

CG-1

Human Sys Integ Mgmt Plan

(HSIMP) P VC VC VC VC CG-1B3 CG-1

System Safety Management

Plan (SSMP) P VC CG-1B3 CG-1

Human Factors Engineering

Plan (HFEP). P VC CG-1B3 CG-1

Configuration Management

Plan (CMP) P PM CG-PEO

Risk Management Plan

(RMP) P VC VC VC PM CG-PEO

Risk Register P U U U PM APEO4

Cost Estimating Baseline

Document (CEBD) P VC VC VC PM

ADE-2A/2B:

APEO

ADE-2C/-3: PM

Life cycle Cost Estimate

(LCCE)5 P VC VC VC PM CG: CG-9

DHS: CFO

Program Protection Plan

(PPP) P VC VC VC VC PM APEO

Acquisition Cybersecurity

Plan (ACSP) P VC VC VC VC PM CG-933

8-8

- - - - -

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Document

Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)

Preparation Approval1

2A 2B 2C 3 4

Test and Evaluation Master

Plan (TEMP) P VC PM

CG: CG-CAO

DHS: DOT&E

Program SELC Tailoring

Plan (PSTP) P VC VC VC PM

CG: CG-CAO

DHS: PARM/CIO

Preliminary Acquisition

Program Baseline (p-APB) P PM

CG: CAE

DHS: ADA (info)

Acquisition Program

Baseline (APB) P VC VC PM

CG: CAE

DHS: ADA

Certification of Funding

(CoF) P P P P CG-82 CG-8

Preliminary Integrated

Logistics Support Plan (p-

ILSP) P PM PEO/DCMS

Integrated Logistics Support

Plan (ILSP) P VC VC U PM

CG: DCMS

DHS: ADA

SELC Review Completion

Letter P P P P PM See Figure 3-5

Deployment Plan (DP) P Sponsor’s Rep. Sponsor

Operational Test Plan (OTP) P OTA DHS DOT&E

Operational Test Report

(OTR) P ITA DHS DOT&E

DHS PARM Post

Implementation Review

(PIR) Report P PM CG-CAO

Program Transition Plan

(PTP) P PM CG-PEO

Manpower Requirements

Analysis (MRA) P

CG-1B3 Funded by Program

CG-1

Enterprise Architecture (EA

Artifacts6 VC VC VC VC VC PM CG EAB

Major Program Milestone

Completion Memo (as

Required) (See Chapter 5)

PM CG-PEO

P = Prepare Prepare the document for approval.

VC = Verify Current The PM must gain concurrence from stakeholders (e.g., IPT and signatory

representatives) that the document reflects the current status of the function.

U = Update Update with concurrent clearance and signature approval.

1. Document approval and review requirements are found on Figures 8-3, 8-4, Document Current Clearance Matrix.

2. JRC is the validation authority in accordance with Reference (i).

3. Annual PMP updates are required by Commandant (CG-93) PEO Policy Statement #2. Contact the Commandant

(CG-93TD) for annual reporting requirements.

4. The IGS and Risk Register are approved monthly through the DHS Source System verification process.

5. If the timing for a LCCE annual update and a LCCE ADE update coincide, the LCCE ADE update takes

precedence.

6. Contact CG-671 EA staff at HQS-DG-lst-CG-671@uscg.mil.

8-9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

8-10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

DH

S USM

(AD

A)

DH

S PAR

M/C

IO/D

OT&

E/C

FO/C

PO

DH

S JR

C

VC

G/C

AE

DC

OD

CM

S

DC

MS-3

4

FOR

CEC

OM

EA

CG

-1

CG

-1B3

CG

-2

CG

-2EA

(CG

-2 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-4

CG

-4EA

(CG

-4 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-5P/C

G-5

R E

A

CG

-6

CG

CIO

/ C

ISO

(CG

-62)

CG

-6EA

, Exe

c Sec

(CG

-6 O

ffic

e C

hiefs)

CG

-7

(N

ote

1)

CG

-7EA

(CG

-7 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-771

Sponso

r

(Not

e 1)

Sponso

r R

ep (

Offic

e C

hief)

CG

-8

CG

-8 E

A

CG

-82

CG

-9 (C

AO

)

CG

-92

(Dep

uty C

AO

)

CG

-93

(PEO

)

CG

-93X

(Dom

ain A

PEO

)

PM (C

G-9

3XX

CG

-933

CG

-93

Dir

of C

yber

(AO

DR

)

CG

-921

CG

-924

CG

-926

CG

-928

CG

-LPL

Oper

atio

nal T

est A

gent

(OTA

)

Inte

rdep

enden

t PM

CG

-912

MNS2 A C, V A E E C C C C C C C C, V E D C C C C C

4 C C C, I

CONOPs2 C, V C C C C E C E C C, V A D C C C C C C C C, I C C

ROM3 I

(OCFO)I I D A I I I E E

4 I

ORD2 A C, V A C E C E C E C C E E C E C C, V E D E C C E E E C, E C C C C C, I C C, E I

CDP5 A C C C C C C C C C A E D, E D

4 C C C C, I C

AA Study Plan6 A, C C C C C C C C E R C, R C, R C C, I C

CEBD7 I

(OCFO)C, E A E A D C

LCCE8 A

(OCFO)E A I E E D E

PSTPC, A

(PARM/

CIO (IT))

C E C E C E E C C C E C A E E D C C C, E

APB (final)9 A A I E C E I E E D V

9

TEMP C, A(DOT&E)

C C C C C C C C E C C A E E D C C C C, V C, I C, E C, E

ILSP A C A C E C E C E C E C C C C E C E C E E E D C C, I C, E

OT Plan C, A(DOT&E)

I I I I I I I I I I I D I

Certification of Funding I(OCFO)

A D C C C C

A - Approval (CG and DHS levels) D - Drafts document & coordinates approval I - Info copy provided after final approval V -Validates content prior to signature

clearance approval

C - Concurrent Clearance E -Endorse (signature clearance)

(Endorser should be informed during CC) R - Review (signature - AA Study Plan Only)

1. The Sponsor is normally COMDT (CG-7), unless another CG organization is specifically designated.

2. See Reference (f) COMDTINST M5000.4 (series) CG Operational Requirements Generation Manual for guidance on review and validation.

3. If required, ROM and cost model brief to DHS OCFO are coordinated through Commandant (CG-82). See Commandant (CG-928) for information on

ROM development.

4. If a PM is not assigned, the APEO must perform the task.

5. PM drafts CDP if assigned.

6. AA Study Director drafts AA Study Plan.

7. For cases where DHS directs CFO ICE, COMDT (CG-82) endorses CEBD for COMDT (CG-9) approval. APEO approves for all other cases.

8. The initial LCCE is referred to as a PLCCE within the CG. The PLCCE is the result of an adjudication of the ICE and Program Cost Estimate.

9. Commandant (CG-924) will send the APB to DHS PARM during IV&V review and before signature clearance. Plan for five working days for PARM

review.

Figure 8-3: DHS Approved Document Concurrent Clearance Matrix

8-11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

DH

S USM

(AD

A)

DH

S PAR

M/C

IO/D

OT&

E/C

FO/C

PO

JRC

VC

G/C

AE

DC

OD

CM

S

DC

MS-3

4

FOR

CEC

OM

EA

CG

-1

CG

-1B3

CG

-2

CG

-2EA

(CG

-2 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-4

CG

-4EA

(CG

-4 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-5P/R

EA

CG

-6

CG

-CIO

/ C

ISO

(CG

-62)

CG

-6 E

A, E

xec Sec

, CG

-6 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

CG

-7

( N

ote

1)

CG

-7EA

(CG

-7 O

ffic

e C

hiefs

)

CG

-771

CG

-791

Sponso

r

(Not

e 1)

Sponso

r R

ep (O

ffic

e C

hief)

CG

-8

CG

-8EA

CG

-82

CG

-9 (C

AO

)

CG

-92

(Dep

uty C

AO

)

CG

-93

(PEO

)

CG

-93X

(Dom

ain A

PEO

)

PM (C

G-9

3XX

)

CG

-933

CG

-93

Dir

of C

yber

(AO

DR

)

CG

-921

CG

-924

CG

-926

CG

-928

CG

-LPL

Oper

atio

nal T

est A

gent

Inte

rdep

enden

t PM

CG

-912

P-ORD2 I I C C C C C C A C V A D C C E E C, EC, E C I C, E

AA Report3 I A R R R R R R R I

APB (preliminary) I A E C E I E E D V

PMP4 (For ADE) C C C C C A E E D C, E C C, E I C, E

RMP C C C C C A E D C

MER A D I I I I I

HSIMP A D I I I I I

CMP C C C C C A E D C

ICE I I I A I I I D

PIR Report5 I I C C C C C C C C C A E E D C C

OT Report A (DOT&E)

I I I I I I I I I I I I I D

DP C C C C C C A D C E E C, E

PPP C C C C E C C C,E C C A D E C, E C C

ACSP C C C C E C C C,E C C E D A C, E C C

PTP I C C E C E C I C E C I C E A E D C C

A - Approval (CG and DHS levels) D - Drafts document & coordinates approval I - Info copy provided after final approval V -Validates content prior to signature

clearance approval

C - Concurrent Clearance E -Endorse (signature clearance)

(Endorser should be informed during CC) R - Review (signature - AA Study Plan Only)

1. The Sponsor is normally COMDT (CG-7), unless another CG organization is specifically designated.

2. See Reference (f) COMDTINST M5000.4 (Series) CG Operational Requirements Generation Manual for guidance on review and validation.

3. AA Study Report is drafted by AA Study Director, accepted by COMDT (CG-9) and approved by VCG/CAE.

4. Annual PMP updates are required by Commandant (CG-93) PEO Policy Statement #2. Contact the Commandant (CG-93TD) for annual reporting

requirements.

5. The PIR Report template is based on the PARM PIR report guidance.

Figure 8-4: CG Approved Document Concurrent Clearance MatrixVerify

8-12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

ACRONYMS

Acronym Definition

AA Alternatives Analysis

AC&I Acquisition Construction and Improvement

ADA Acquisition Decision Authority

ADE Acquisition Decision Event

ADE-1 Acquisition Decision Event 1: Validation of Need

ADE-2A Acquisition Decision Event 2A: Approve the Program and Initiate Obtain Phase Activities

ADE-2B Acquisition Decision Event 2B: Approve Acquisition Program Baseline, Continue Obtain

Phase Activities

ADE-2C Acquisition Decision Event 2C: Approve Low-rate Initial Production/Incremental

Delivery

ADE-3 Acquisition Decision Event 3: Produce & Deploy Programs/Products

ADE-4 Acquisition Decision Event 4 (USCG Only): Approve Transition to Support

ADM Acquisition Decision Memorandum

ALC Aviation Logistics Center

AODR Authorizing Official Designated Representative

AP Acquisition Plan

APB Acquisition Program Baseline

APEO Assistant Program Executive Officer

APO Asset Project Office

ARB Acquisition Review Board

ARP Acquisition Review Process

ART Acquisition Review Team

A/S Analyze Select

AT&L Acquisition Technology and Logistics

AWCB Acquisition Workforce Certification Board

C5IT Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber and Information Technology

C5ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cybersecurity, Intelligence,

Surveillance and Reconnaissance

CAE Component Acquisition Executive

CAO Chief Acquisition Officer

CASR Comprehensive Acquisition Status Report

CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis

CBRNE Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives

CCA Clinger Cohen Act

CCB Configuration Control Board

CDR Critical Design Review

CDRL Contract Data Requirements List

CEBD Cost Estimating Baseline Document

CDP Capability Development Plan

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CG ARB Coast Guard Acquisition Review Board

CICA Competition in Contracting Act

CIM Commandant Instruction Manual

1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Acronym Definition

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIP Capital Investment Plan

CM Configuration Management

CMP Configuration Management Plan

COI Critical Operational Issue

CONOPS Concept of Operations

CPIC Capital Planning & Investment Control

CPO Chief Procurement Officer

DCMS Deputy Commandant for Mission Support

DCO Deputy Commandant for Operations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DMSMS Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages

DOD Department of Defense

DOORS Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System

DOSE DHS S&T Director Office of Systems Engineering (DOSE)

DOT&E Director Office of Test and Evaluation

DP Deployment Plan

DT Developmental Test

DTP Developmental Test Plan

DT&E Developmental Test and Evaluation

DUSM Deputy Undersecretary for Management (DHS)

EA Enterprise Architecture

EAB Enterprise Architecture Board

ECP Engineering Change Proposal

EIT Electronic and Information Technology

eMASS Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service

EOA Early Operational Assessment

EOC Executive Oversight Council

ETA Engineering Technical Authority

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations

FCA Functional Configuration Audit

FOC Full Operational Capability

FOT&E Follow-On Test and Evaluation

FRMM Financial Resource Management Manual

FY Fiscal Year

FYHSP Future Years Homeland Security Program

GAO Government Accountability Office

GFE Government Furnished Equipment

GFI Government Furnished Information

HCA Head of Contracting Activity

HFE Human Factors Engineering

HFEP Human Factors Engineering Plan

HSAM Homeland Security Acquisition Manual

2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Acronym Definition

HSI Human Systems Integration

HPS&T Human Performance Support and Training

HSIMP Human Systems Integration Management Plan

ICE Independent Cost Estimate

ILA Independent Logistics Assessment

ILS Integrated Logistics Support

ILSMT Integrated Logistics Support Management Team

ILSP Integrated Logistics Support Plan

IGS Integrated Government Schedule

INVEST Investment Evaluation, Submission and Tracking

IOC Initial Operational Capability

IOT&E Initial Operational Test and Evaluation

IPG Integrated Planning Guidance

IPT Integrated Product/Program Team

IRR Integration Readiness Review

ITA Independent Test Agency

IT Information Technology

ITAR Information Technology Acquisition Review

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation

JRC Joint Requirements Council

KPP Key Performance Parameter

LCC Life Cycle Cost

LCCE Life Cycle Cost Estimate

LCI Logistics Compliance Inspection

LRFP Logistics Resource Funding Plan

LRIP Low-rate Initial Production

LRR Logistics Readiness Review

M&S Modeling and Simulation

MA Mission Analysis

MAR Mission Analysis Report

MASI Major Acquisition Systems Infrastructure

MD Management Directive (DHS)

MER Manpower Estimate Report

MNS Mission Need Statement

MOE Measures of Effectiveness

MOP Measures of Performance

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MRA Manpower Requirements Analysis

MSAM Major Systems Acquisition Manual

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

O&S Operations and Support

OA Operational Analysis

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCPO Office of the Chief Procurement Officer

3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Acronym Definition

OE Operating Expense

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORD Operational Requirements Document

ORR Operational Readiness Review

OT Operational Test

OTA Operational Test Agency/Agent

OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation

OTRR Operational Test Readiness Review

PARM Program Accountability and Risk Management (DHS Office)

P/D/S Produce/Deploy/Support

PCA Physical Configuration Audit

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PEO Program Executive Officer

PIR Post Implementation Review

PLCCE Program Life Cycle Cost Estimate

PM Program Manager

PMO Program Management Office

PMP Program Management Plan

P-ORD Preliminary Operational Requirements Document

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution

PPR Program Planning Review

PRO Program Resident Office

PRR Production Readiness Review

PSTP Program SELC Tailoring Plan

PTP Program Transition Plan

RAD Resource Allocation Decision

RAP Resource Allocation Plan

RC Resource Council

RDT&E Research, Development, Test & Evaluation

RFP Request For Proposal

RMF Risk Management Framework (IT)

RMP Risk Management Plan

ROI Return on Investment

ROM Rough Order of Magnitude

RP Resource Proposal

RTM Requirements Traceability Matrix

RTVM Requirements Traceability and Verification Matrix

SDR System Definition Review

SE Systems Engineering

SELC Systems Engineering Life Cycle

SE PIR Systems Engineering Post Implementation Review

SAR Solutions Analysis Review

SFLC Surface Forces Logistics Center

SIT Systems Integration Team

4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Acronym Definition

SME Subject Matter Expert

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SOW Statement of Work

SPR Study Plan Review

SRR System Requirements Review

SSMP System Safety Management Plan

SS/OH System Safety & Occupational Health

TA Technical Authority

TAC Total Acquisition Cost

T&E Test and Evaluation

T&E IPT Test and Evaluation IPT

TDP Technical Data Plan

TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan

USCG United States Coast Guard

USM Under Secretary for Management (DHS)

VCG Vice Commandant

V&V Verification and Validation

VV&A Verification, Validation and Accreditation

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

Intentionally Left Blank

5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

GLOSSARY

Term Explanation

Acquisition Cybersecurity

Plan (ACSP)

The ACSP reflects the program’s long-term plan, strategy, approach for, and

implementation of cybersecurity throughout the program life cycle. The ACSP is a

tool for PMs, Authorizing Officials (AO) and relevant review and approval

authorities to plan for, identify, assess, mitigate, and manage risks as systems

mature.

Acquisition Decision

Authority (ADA)

The ADA is responsible for ensuring compliance with DHS Instruction 102-01-001

(series) by reviewing and approving the entry of an acquisition program into the

next phase of the acquisition program process when the acquisition program meets

applicable criteria. The ADA has overarching responsibility for the cost, schedule,

risk, and system performance of the acquisition program portfolio, and is

responsible for assessing Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) breaches, directing

corrective actions, and approving any revisions to the APB.

Acquisition Decision

Event (ADE)

An event within the DHS acquisition life cycle process where the Acquisition

Decision Authority (ADA) decides if a program meets the requirements, given the

appropriate ADE, to progress to the next phase or subsequent decision event.

Acquisition Plan (AP) The Acquisition Plan (AP) is the means to discuss the acquisition planning process

and document the decisions made prior to processing each major contract action.

The AP serves as a mechanism create a roadmap for the implementation of

acquisition contracting decisions.

Acquisition Program

Baseline (APB)

The APB formally summarizes the program’s critical cost, schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in measurable, quantitative terms that must be

met in order to accomplish the program’s goals.

Allocated Baseline Established by reviewing subsystem and component definitions, requirements

allocations to subsystems and component CIs, design, and test approaches.

Alternatives Analysis Process of assessing the different methods for accomplishing functions, achieving

performance requirements, and developing and documenting alternate concepts

based on scenario and functional definitions.

Alternatives Analysis

Report

Artifact that summarizes how a program assesses the different methods for

accomplishing functions, achieving performance requirements, and developing and

documenting alternate concepts based on scenario and functional definitions.

Alternatives Analysis

Study Plan (AASP)

The AASP defines the assumptions, scope/bounds, and constraints and may require

certain alternatives to be examined to “open up” the prospective solution trade

space.

Analysis of Alternatives

(AoA)

Systematic analytic and decision-making process to identify and document the

optimal solutions for satisfying an identified mission capability gap.

Annual (Program)

Review

Annual reviews allow for review of major systems acquisition programs and

facilitate the flow of information across directorates and senior management.

Budget Rough Order of

Magnitude (ROM)

Used in the MSAM to describe the artifact developed by the Sponsor to provide a

cost estimate to support the PPBE process prior to Materiel Decision.

Capability Development

Plan (CDP)

Serves as the agreement between the Program Manager (PM) and the ADA on the

activities, cost, schedule, and performance boundaries of the work to be performed

in the Analyze/Select (A/S) Phase leading up to ADE-2A.

Component Cybersecurity

Acquisition Risk

Management (C-CARM)

A multidisciplinary group that identifies, assesses, analyzes, and reports

Component-level cybersecurity risks.

Concept of Operations

(CONOPS)

The Concept of Operations (CONOPS) describes the asset or system proposed by

the MNS in terms of the ways it will be used, its relationship to existing assets,

systems, or procedures, and user needs it will fulfill. The CONOPS is used to obtain

1

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

consensus among the mission managers, Sponsor, acquirer, developer, support, and

other user entities within the Coast Guard on the operational and support concept of

a proposed system.

Concurrent Clearance Formally communicates important program information (documentation) to key

stakeholders in order to solicit their comments and ultimately, their concurrence

prior to submitting the document for approval. During the concurrent clearance

process, the staffs of active program Integrated Product Team (IPT) stakeholders are

expected to ensure their senior Flag/SES leadership are fully informed of all relevant

issues and are aware of critical issues during the pending review, adjudication, and

endorsement processes.

Configuration Control CCB charters depicting CCB composition and specific responsibilities are

Board (CCB) Charter established and issued by the PM/PLM/Sponsor and should be included in the CM

Plan. A sample template for a CCB Charter is provided in on the Commandant (CG-

924) CG portal at the following link: http://cglink.uscg.mil/6a66767d.

Configuration Item (CI) Any item or entity designated for independent management (CI or SCI for software

configuration items). An example of a CI could include a hardware (HW) or

software (SW) product, operating information document, facility, person, line of

business, or an institution itself. The specific arrangement of a solution is referred to

as its configuration, represented in a hierarchical manner.

Configuration The basic principle of CM is to capture and communicate the elements and

Management (CM) relationships of a need and its product accurately at all times. CM Plans should

define how CM will be performed, be maintained as a living document and be

maintained under CM control.

Configuration

Management Plan (CMP)

Configuration Management (CM) is an integral part of the systems engineering

process. The basic principle of CM is to capture and communicate the elements and

relationships of a need and its product accurately at all times. Configuration

Management Plans (CMP) should define how CM will be performed, kept as a

living document and maintained under CM control.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

(CBA)

A CBA, sometimes referred to as a business case analysis (BCA), is a comparative

analysis that presents facts and supporting details among competing alternatives. A

CBA considers not only all the life-cycle costs that an LCCE identifies but also

quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits. The CBA seeks to find the best value

solution by linking each alternative to how it satisfies a program's strategic

objective.

Cost Estimating Baseline The CEBD is a PM developed document that provides a technical, programmatic,

Document (CEBD) and schedule description of the program requirements to the cost estimating team

developing the program cost estimate and the Independent LCCE (ICE). The CEBD

must be updated before each ADE and as necessary to support updates to the

program’s LCCE.

Critical Design Review SELC Technical Review ensuring/validating that the system design is complete and

(CDR) accurate in its functional and physical description and can provide the results

defined in the baseline requirements. Assesses readiness to build system level

Development Test & Evaluation (DT&E) assets.

Critical Operational Issue

(COI)

The operational effectiveness and operational suitability issue(s) (not characteristics,

parameters, or thresholds) that must be examined in Office of Test and Evaluation

(OT&E) to evaluate/assess the system’s capacity to provide the desired capability.

2

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Critical Program U.S. capability elements that contribute to the warfighters’ technical advantage,

Information (CPI) which if compromised, undermines U.S. military preeminence. U.S. capability

elements may include, but are not limited to, software algorithms and specific

hardware residing on the system, its training equipment, or maintenance support

equipment. Identification and Analysis of CPI within a program will go through 3

stages of maturity: Potential CPI, Candidate CPI, and Final CPI (for more guidance

see Program Protection Plan Navigation guide 1.0).

Cybersecurity Prevention of damage to, unauthorized use of, or exploitation of, and, if needed, the

restoration of electronic information and communications systems and the

information contained therein to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Deployment Plan The DP is the planning document that addresses all areas of asset deployment

related to the acquisition and identifies all required resources to operate and sustain

the new asset or capability when it is delivered to the deployed location. The DP

should be prepared in consultation with all Operating and Support Program

Managers who are likely to participate in deployment efforts, to ensure that all

appropriate deployment issues are addressed. Planning considerations include the

timing of deliveries, the order in which new assets or capabilities will be delivered,

facilities/infrastructure, homeport or operating site selection and appropriate

environmental impact analysis, modification of computerized prototypes to create

virtual trainers, and (in many cases) the disposal of old assets as they are replaced by

new ones.

Developmental Baseline Detailed design process results for the system, hardware, software, support

equipment, training systems, system integration laboratory, and technical data

Developmental Test and The disciplined process of generating and collecting engineering-type data from

Evaluation (DT&E) systems, subsystems, components, and material to inform optimum engineering

solutions, acquisition decisions, and progress toward meeting design performance

goals. DT&E generally requires instrumentation and measurements and is

accomplished in controlled environments such as laboratories, test facilities,

engineering centers, test beds, and test ranges.

Development Test &

Evaluation (DT&E) Plan

Describes the purpose, activities, scope, responsibilities, schedule, resources, and

other information for developmental testing.

Developmental Test The DTR documents the results from the completed developmental testing, which

Report (DTR) includes the outcome of the program's technical verification evaluation, in order to

evaluate system performance. Technical evaluation deals primarily with

instrumented tests and statistically valid data. These test criteria are usually

parameters that can be measured during a controlled DT&E test.

Early Operational

Assessment (EOA)

Early Operational Assessment(s) (EOA) are conducted prior to or in support of

prototype testing before ADE-2C. EOAs assess the operational impact of candidate

technical approaches and assist in selecting preferred alternative system concepts.

Enterprise Mission Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service (eMASS) is a government owned

Assurance Support web-based application with a broad range of services for comprehensive fully

Service (eMASS) integrated cybersecurity management. Features include dashboard reporting,

controls scorecard measurement, and the generation of a system security

authorization package. eMASS provides an integrated suite of authorization

capabilities and prevents cyber attacks by establishing strict process control

mechanisms for obtaining authorization decisions. Note: Contact Commandant (CG-

93) Director of Cybersecurity staff for more information or to request access to

eMASS at HQS-DG-LST-CG-933Cyber@uscg.mil

Embedded Information Information technology (IT) that is used as an integral part of the product, but the

Systems / Embedded IT principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation,

management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or

reception of data or information.

3

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Engineering Technical ETA is the authority, responsibility, and accountability to establish or assert

Authority (ETA) engineering technical standards, tools, processes, and best practices; monitor

compliance with or use of them; and certify conformance with statute, policy,

requirements, architectures, and standards. The execution of ETA is a process that

establishes and assures adherence to engineering technical standards and policy

providing a range of technically acceptable alternatives with corresponding risk and

value assessments.

Follow-on Operational An integrated T&E activity conducted after full-rate production to evaluate

Test and Evaluation production changes, validate changes to tactics, training, and procedures (TTPs) and

(FOT&E) evaluate the correction of deficiencies identified during OT&E, and to re-evaluate

the system to ensure that it continues to meet operational needs.

Functional Baseline Defines the functions the system has to perform, but not how the system will

perform them. It is represented by the set of artifacts that defines the system's

boundaries and external interfaces, its behavioral characteristics as well as the means

of verification required to demonstrate that these characteristics have been realized.

Functional Requirement Decomposed from operational requirements and then allocated across the lower-

level functions. At each level of decomposition, the total set of derived requirements

is validated against stakeholder expectations or higher-level parent requirements

before proceeding to the next level of decomposition. When decomposing and

allocating requirements to applicable lower-level functions, it is imperative that

analysis is conducted and documented to ensure that overall operational

requirements are met.

Governance For this manual, governance is defined as the act of regulating acquisition program

execution within the USCG defined ALF using senior stakeholder representative

forums. The USCG acquisition governance forums include the NMAOC, EOC,

DCO/DCMS, and the CG ARB

Habitability Establishes requirements for the physical environment, personnel services (e.g.,

medical and messing), working and living conditions (e.g., berthing and personal

hygiene).

Human Factors

Engineering (HFE)

Employed during systems engineering over the life of the program to provide for

effective human-machine interfaces and work and living environments to meet

programmatic and mission driven human performance requirements.

Human Factors A government management plan that defines human engineering program

Engineering Plan (HFEP) requirements and ensures the implementation and accomplishment of human

engineering tasks and activities consistent with the overall program requirements.

The HFEP is developed during the Analyze/Select Phase.

Human Performance

Support and Training

(HPS&T)

The Coast Guard utilizes standardized Human Performance Technology (HPT)

methodology to provide system end-users (operators, maintainers, and supporters)

with the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed to accomplish system tasks.

KSA gaps are determined systematically and specific intervention strategies (job

aids, watch qualification standards, resident and non-resident courses, etc.) are

selected, developed, and implemented to provide end-users with the KSAs to meet

mission requirements in a manner that is both cost effective and sustainable. Human

Performance Support and Training (HPS&T) development is carried out in five

phases: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE)

as prescribed in the FORCECOM Standard Operating Procedures (FORCECOM

SOP).

4

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Human Systems Human System Integration is the science that ensures the capabilities and limitations

Integration (HSI) of human users (operators, maintainers, and supporters) are best matched with the

constraints presented by system technology. HSI seeks to identify and remove

system elements that: require excessive cognitive, physical, or sensory skills; result

in mission-critical errors; require avoidable training costs; or, produce safety or

health hazards.

Human Systems

Integration Management

Plan (HSIMP)

The HSIMP describes the human systems integration management program,

identifies the HSI elements, HSI activities, program roles and responsibilities, and

how the HSI domain plans will be managed and integrated with other program

elements. Commandant (CG-1B3) provides technical guidance and management of

HSIMP development. The HSIMP is prepared during the Analyze/Select Phase.

Independent Cost The ICE is a life cycle cost estimate developed “independently” from the influence, Estimate (ICE) supervision, direction, advocacy, or control of the PM, PEO, or Sponsor. The ICE is

normally only conducted once during the acquisition life cycle in support of the

ADE-2A decision. The ICE is based on the established ground rules, program

information and assumptions documented in the CEBD. Cost estimating

methodologies and techniques employed in the ICE are determined by independent

cost analysts. Commandant (CG-9283) will normally lead the development of all

ICE for Level 1 & 2 acquisitions. The PM is responsible for funding the ICE effort.

Contact Commandant (CG-928) for the latest ICE requirements.

Independent Logistics ILAs are the validation step in the "Validation and Verification (V&V)" of support

Assessments (ILA) programs. They formally review an asset’s acquisition logistics planning and resource documentation and evaluate Life Cycle Support Strategy planning and

implementation. In addition, they also evaluate support strategy development

policies and processes and are one source of information that program executives

use to decide if a program should proceed to its next life cycle phase. ILAs are

performed during the Obtain Phase.

Initial Technical Review

(ITR)

The Initial Technical Review (ITR) determines whether an appropriate level of

analysis was conducted, whether this analysis supports the capability gaps identified

in the Mission Need Statement (MNS), and whether the Capability Development

Plan (CDP) clearly reflects the next set of activities to be performed in order to

address the capability gaps.

Integrated Product Team An IPT is a chartered planning forum comprised of representatives from various

(IPT) functional disciplines, management, technical experts and program stakeholders

chaired by the PM or a designated qualified IPT lead to assist the PM in the planning

and execution of the acquisition program.

Integration Readiness

Review (IRR)

The purpose of the Integration Readiness Review (IRR) is to assess system

development efforts and subsystem, component, and/or Configuration Item (CI) test

results to ensure the system is ready for integration and comprehensive

Developmental Test and evaluation (DT&E). It also ensures that DT&E planning

has been completed and test planning and infrastructure is adequate to support

comprehensive DT&E.

Independent Test Agent

(ITA)

Formerly the Operational Test Agent (OTA), the ITA coordinates all OT&E

activities on a program. In addition, the ITA is independent of the program office in

terms of its reporting chain of command, in the conduct and reporting of OT&E and

is an active and integral member of the T&E WIPT. They are responsible for

creating the OT&E Report that validates whether the system is effective, suitable,

and cyber resilient for deployment. The ITA can be considered by the T&E Manager

to assist with the planning, execution, and even assessment of DT&E events.

Independent Verification IV&V is comprehensive review, analysis, and testing, (software and/or hardware)

and Validation (IV&V) performed by an objective third party to confirm (i.e., verify) that the requirements

are correctly defined, and to confirm (i.e., validate) that the system correctly

implements the required functionality and security requirements.

5

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Information System

Security Manager (ISSM)

Individual responsible for the information assurance of a program, organization,

system, or enclave.

Information System Individual assigned responsibility by the senior agency information security officer,

Security Officer (ISSO) authorizing official, management official, or information system owner for

maintaining the appropriate operational security posture for an information system

or program.

Information Technology

Acquisition Review

(ITAR)

The ITAR is a process led by the USCG CIO to ensure that IT Acquisitions are

aligned with Administration and Congressional priorities, and with Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) strategic goals

Integrated Baseline

Review (IBR)

An IBR is a joint assessment conducted by the government Program Manager (PM)

and the contractor to establish a mutual understanding of the Performance

Measurement Baseline (PMB). This understanding provides for an agreement on a

plan of action to evaluate the risks inherent in the PMB and the management

processes that operate during program execution. PM’s are required to conduct IBRs on all cost or incentive contracts that require the implementation of Earned Value

Management (EVM) (contracts valued at or greater than $20 million). IBRs should

be used to understand:

a. The scope of the PMB consistent with authorizing documents;

b. Management control processes;

c. Risks in the PMB associated with cost, schedules, and resources; and

d. Corrective actions where necessary.

For additional info and guidance on conducting an IBR, refer to following link to

AcqNotes: http://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/integrated-baseline-review.

Integrated Government

Schedule (IGS)

The IGS is a fundamental PM management tool to help execute programs

effectively. Enabling measurement of program performance (e.g., schedule, cost)

against an approved baseline, it provides the “big picture” view of the program. An integrated and reliable schedule can forecast when major events are expected as well

as the completion dates for all activities leading up to them, which can help

determine if the program’s parameters are realistic and achievable.

Integrated Logistics

Support (ILS)

The Coast Guard ILS program emphasizes planning for the ILS elements. The

elements include design interface, supply support, maintenance planning and

management, packaging, handling, storage and transportation (PHS&T), technical

data, support equipment, training and training support, manpower/personnel,

facilities and infrastructure, computer resources, sustaining engineering, and ILS

management. The ILS program also addresses cross cutting engineering and

logistics support elements including Obsolescence Management, Diminishing

Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS); environmental, safety

and occupational health considerations; automatic identification technology; funding

for logistics assessments; deployment and fielding; post-production support; and

retirement and disposal.

Integrated Logistics

Support Plan (ILSP)

The ILSP is a life cycle document that is initially prepared during the

Analyze/Select Phase of the acquisition and updated to support each acquisition

decision event (ADE). At ADE-4 the ILSP transitions to the sustainment community

for continued use and updating for the complete life of the system/equipment.

Product Line Manager (PLM) maintains the ILSP during sustainment through

disposal.

Interdependent Programs Interdependent programs are programs which provide or receive an asset, system,

data or facility to or from another program.

6

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Interim Authority to Test

(IATT)

Agreement between the PM and the "Authorizing Official" to obtain an

authorization decision to conduct this test.

International Trade The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is the United States regulation

Agreement Review that controls the manufacture, sale, and distribution of defense and space-related

(ITAR) articles and services as defined in the United States Munitions List (USML). The

USCG Foreign Disclosure Office (FDO), Commandant (CG-222), is the POC for

ITAR-related inquiries.

Key Performance

Parameters (KPP)

Key Performance Parameters - The most important and non-negotiable requirements

that the system/capability will meet to fulfill its fundamental purpose. These are

tracked within the Acquisition Performance Baseline (APB) planning artifact.

Life Cycle Cost Estimate

(LCCE)

A life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE) provides an exhaustive and structured accounting

of all resources and associated cost elements required to develop, produce, deploy,

and sustain a particular program. Life cycle can be thought of as a “cradle to grave” approach to managing a program throughout its useful life. This entails identifying

all cost elements that pertain to the program from initial concept all the way through

operations, support, and disposal. An LCCE encompasses all past (or sunk), present,

and future costs for every aspect of the program, regardless of funding source.

Logistics Readiness The LRR ensures Coast Guard systems deployed to the field receive proper logistics

Review (LRR) support. A cross-functional team performs an LRR by assessing logistics support

policies, processes, planning, and implementation. By doing so, the team ensures

that the system has properly defined logistics requirements (policy and plans), and

that these policies/plans are both executable and implemented.

Manpower The mix of military, civilian, and contract support necessary to operate, maintain,

train, and support the system.

Manpower Estimate The MER describes all manpower requirements to operate, maintain, and support a

Report (MER) system consistent with planned operating and logistics concepts. Manpower offsets

are identified if required. The MER provides information for cost estimates. The

Sponsor’s Representative or PM resources the analysis required for the MER.

Commandant (CG-1B3) provides technical guidance and management of MER

development. Commandant (CG-1) approves the MER. The MER is prepared during

the Analyze/Select Phase.

Manpower Requirements

Analysis (MRA)

The MER is updated as the fidelity of the acquisition matures and is the basis of the

MRA. The MRA must describe all manpower requirements to operate, maintain,

train, and support a system consistent with planned operating and logistic concepts.

It informs the LCCE. The Sponsor’s Representative or PM resources the MRA.

Commandant (CG-1B3) oversees and prepares the MRA, and Commandant (CG-1)

approves the MRA. The MRA’s required positions are used to align manpower in preparation for OT&E and ADE-3.

Materiel Decision (MD) The Materiel Decision (MD) is not a formal event. It is a recognition by the Sponsor

and acquisition community that the Coast Guard has elected, through the PPBE

process, to formally request a resource allocation or has received funding to fill a

capability gap as defined in a Capability Analysis Report (CAR) and meets the

criteria of an acquisition. This recognition (typically early in the Need phase) by the

Sponsor and acquisition community triggers the preparation for ADE-1.

Materiel Solution A new item (including ships, aircraft, etc., and related spares, repair parts, and

support equipment, but excluding real property, installations, and utilities)

developed or purchased to satisfy one or more capability requirements (or needs)

and reduce or eliminate one or more capability gaps.

Measures of Effectiveness

(MOEs)

MOEs are derived through an analysis of the mission by initially defining the

specific mission tasks that are required to be performed, regardless of the potential

solutions. The scenarios and alternative operational concepts for responding to the

scenario are used to define the top-level mission tasks. For each of the mission tasks,

7

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

at least one MOE is identified that defines how well that task is performed. MOEs

typically have several Measures of Performance (MOPs), which are specific

technical performance parameters that can be measured and contribute to each

MOE. MOEs and MOPs are refined and clarified as necessary.

Measures of Performance

(MOPs)

Specific technical performance parameters that can be measured and contribute to

each Measure of Effectiveness (MOE). MOEs and MOPs are refined and clarified as

necessary.

Mission Need Statement

(MNS)

A MNS provides a high-level description of the mission need, whether from a

current or impending gap, based on business-case planning. The MNS outlines only

the concept of the material solution to fill the gap and does not provide information

on specific acquisitions/types of acquisition that could provide that capability.

Modeling and Simulation

(M&S)

Can assist the T&E process by assessing the asset or system in scenarios and areas

of the mission space or performance envelope where testing cannot be performed, is

not cost effective, or additional data are required. Contact Commandant (CG-926)

for further information on leveraging modeling and simulation to support test and

evaluation objectives.

Non-Functional

Requirements

Specify criteria used to judge the operation of a system rather than specific

behaviors. They place constraints on the product being developed and specify

external constraints the product has to meet.

Non-Materiel Solution Changes to doctrine, organization, training, (existing) material, leadership and

education, personnel, and/or facilities, implemented to satisfy one or more capability

requirements (or needs) and reduce or eliminate one or more capability gaps,

without the need to develop or purchase a new material solution.

Operational Analysis The process of examining the ongoing performance of an operating asset investment

and measuring that performance against an established set of cost, schedule, and

performance goals. An operational analysis is, by nature, less structured than

performance reporting methods applied to developmental projects and should trigger

considerations of how the investment's objectives could be better met, how costs

could be reduced, and whether the organization should continue performing a

particular function.

Operational Assessment

(OA)

An integrated T&E activity conducted to determine readiness to begin initial

production. An OA is conducted using technology demonstrators, prototypes, mock-

ups, engineering development models, or simulations. An ITA leads the OA effort

which is conducted to support an Acquisition Decision Event (ADE) 2C decision.

Operational Baseline Represents the set of operational requirements and the applicable source documents

that define the system's behavioral characteristics from a user perspective. This

baseline includes the MNS, System Context Diagram, ORD, Concept of Operations

(CONOPS), and the AOA/AA final report, and updated Risk Assessment Report

(RAR), and updated System Security Plan (SSP), at a minimum.

Operational Effectiveness Measure of the overall ability of a system to provide desired capability when used

by representative personnel in the environment planned or expected for operational

employment of the system considering organization, doctrine, tactics, supportability,

survivability, vulnerability, and threat..

Operational Readiness

Review (ORR)

The purpose of the Operational Readiness Review (ORR) is to assess the system’s operational effectiveness and suitability. The ORR also ensures that the system

possesses the required manufacturing and logistics support capabilities and

capacities, and is therefore ready to be moved into production, fielding, and

operation. The ORR supports the Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)-3 decision.

8

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Operational Requirements

Document (ORD)

The Operational Requirements Document (ORD), along with the Concept of

Operations (CONOPS), provides a bridge between the top-level capability needs

spelled out in the MNS and the detailed technical requirements found in the

performance specifications that ultimately govern development of the system. The

ORD translates the capabilities defined in the MNS into operational requirements

that complement the approved CONOPS and contain Critical Operational Issues

(COIs).

Operational

Resilience/Resiliency

The ability of systems to resist, absorb, and recover from or adapt to an adverse

occurrence during operation that may cause harm, destruction, or loss of ability to

perform mission-related functions.

Operational Suitability Degree to which a product or system can be placed and sustained satisfactorily in

field use. This also includes consideration being given to aspects such as

availability, compatibility, transportability, interoperability, reliability, wartime

usage rates, maintainability, safety, human factors, habitability, manpower, logistics

supportability, natural environmental effects and impacts, documentation, and

training requirements.

Operational Test and An integrated T&E activity conducted in operationally realistic conditions, including

Evaluation (OT&E) (also realistic threats, using production representative systems operated by trained users,

called Initial Operational to determine the operational effectiveness, suitability, and resilience of a system, and

Test and Evaluation the corresponding evaluation of data resulting from such test. Programs typically

(IOT&E)) conduct OT&E to support a full-rate production decision at ADE-3.

Operational Test & The Operational Test Plan's (OTP) contents (e.g., test methodology and evaluation

Evaluation (OT&E) criteria, and data collection and management processes) directly impact the eventual

Plan(s) assessment of whether the system is ready for production and deployment. The OTP

is a key determinant of the conclusions reached during Operational Test (OT) and

subsequently documented in the OT Report.

Operational Test &

Evaluation (OT&E)

Report

The Operational Test Agent’s (OTA’s) report addressing critical issues observed during a phase of operational testing and their evaluation of operational

effectiveness and operational suitability of the system.

Operational Test Director

(OTD)

The individual, typically assigned to the ITA (formerly OTA), designated to lead the

planning, conduct, and reporting for a particular OT&E activity.

Operational Test

Readiness Review

(OTRR)

The purpose of the OTRR is to ensure that everything is ready to enter Operational

Test & Evaluation (OT&E), including assessing the system’s readiness (i.e. performance, supportability, and training), evaluating the status of OT&E planning,

resources (e.g., test items, operators, maintainers, data collectors, instrumentation,

spare parts, manuals, and test venues), and ensuring that the fielded system is ready

for OT&E.

Personnel Define the human performance characteristics of the user population based on the

system description and projected characteristics of target occupational specialties.

Personnel attributes are design parameters.

Personnel Survivability Addresses personnel survivability issues including protection against detection;

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives (CBRNE)

effects; the integrity of the crew compartment; and provisions for rapid egress.

Post-Implementation

Review (PIR)

See the definition of Systems Engineering Post-Implementation Review (SE PIR)

Preliminary Design The purpose of the PDR is to assess and approve the allocation of functional and

Review (PDR) non-functional requirements from the functional baseline to one or more

Configuration Items (CIs) in the physical architecture, thereby defining the allocated

baseline and physical architecture for the system.

Principal for Safety (PFS) The PFS, also called the System Safety Lead, is the single point of contact for

system safety-related matters. The PFS is designated in writing by the program

manager and has the authority to speak for them on system safety-related matters in

9

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

accordance with the Acquisition Directorate (CG-9) Standard Operating Procedure

#7, Program Risk Management and Mishap Risk Management (CG-9 SOP #7);

Privacy Impact Serves as the primary mechanism for conducting and documenting a privacy

Assessment (PIA) analysis, thus describing the ability of a system to protect and secure personally

identifiable information (PII), such as: social security numbers, birthdates, personal

and home addresses.

Procurement The PALT is the estimated amount of time required to effectively award a contract

Administrative Lead action once a complete Purchase Request (PR) package has been submitted to the

Time (PALT) contracting activity. PALT includes time required for planning and workload

management, performing reviews and obtaining approvals

Production Baseline It is represented by the set of artifacts that defines the configuration of the system

and each of its Configuration Items (CIs) as delivered for production, deployment,

and operational support. It is the "as-built" version of the system whose CIs have

undergone any required qualification testing and operational testing (OT) and has

been determined to be ready for production.

Production Readiness The purpose of the PRR is to review the results of Integration and Test activities to

Review (PRR) validate that the developed system meets defined requirements and assesses system

and manufacturing readiness for the move to limited production. This review

supports Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)-2C decision.

Product Support Strategy

(PSS)

A PSS encompasses the means by which capability sustainment will be

accomplished. It is not a one-time decision made early in the system life and

executed in the same form throughout the life cycle. It is evolutionary, since the

requirements, capabilities, competencies, operational mission, and material

condition of defense systems change over time. The PSM must be cognizant of the

baseline conditions when assessing and selecting the appropriate strategy,

monitoring its performance, and when revising the strategy as circumstances change.

Program Cybersecurity

Acquisition Risk

Management (P-CARM)

A multidisciplinary group that identifies, assesses, analyzes, and reports Program-

level cybersecurity risks.

Program

Liaisons/Functional

Liaisons

The Commandant (CG-924) staff members are assigned as program liaisons to

specific Coast Guard programs to assist the PM and his/her staff in progressing

through the acquisition life cycle. Commandant (CG-924) staff also serve as

functional liaisons, providing advice and clarification for certain functions such as

systems engineering, and format and content of required documentation (CDP,

PMP, RMP, ILSP, PSTP, APB, TEMP, etc.).

Program Life cycle Cost Program Life cycle Cost Estimate (PLCCE) - The PLCCE is the life cycle cost

Estimate (PLCCE) estimate (LCCE) which supports the programs preliminary Acquisition Program

Baseline (p-APB) and the Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)-2A decision. PLCCE

is a Coast Guard unique term that represents the combination of two separate cost

estimates, the program estimate and the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE). The PM,

with concurrence by Commandant (CG-928), is responsible to reconcile the

differences between the program estimate and the ICE. If there are issues that cannot

be reconciled between the estimates, Commandant (CG-9) will determine the

resolution

Program Management The PMP establishes a management framework for the overall management of the

Plan (PMP) approved acquisition program for the IPTs and provides centralized authority over

all technical, business, and risk management aspects of the program. The Integrated

Government Schedule (IGS) is a component of the PMP.

10

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Program Office Estimate The program estimate is a life cycle cost estimate developed by the PM with support

from Commandant (CG-928). The PM finalizes the life cycle estimate based on the

preferred solution from the Solution Analysis Review (SAR) following the

Alternatives Analysis (AA). The LCCE developmental steps in DHS CFO FMPM

are based on GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, GAO-09-3SP and are

used to develop the program estimate. Contact Commandant (CG-928) for the latest

program estimate requirements. Please refer to the Commandant (CG-928) CG

portal site for how to develop a LCCE.

Program Planning Review The PPR determines whether sufficient technical planning has been conducted to

(PPR) begin functional design in support of program execution. The program conducts this

Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC) Technical Review at the end of Planning

and prior to Acquisition Decision Event (ADE)-2A.

Program Protection Program Protection seeks to defend capabilities by “keeping sensitive things from getting out” and “keeping malicious things from getting in.” Where the capability is derived from advanced technology, Program Protection mitigates the risk that the

technology will be lost or compromised. Where the capability is derived from

integration of commercially available or developed components, Program Protection

mitigates the risk that design vulnerabilities or supply chains vulnerabilities will be

exploited to degrade system performance.

Program Systems

Engineering Tailoring

Plan (PSTP)

The PSTP seeks to document SELC framework features, key system engineering

activities, artifacts, and technical reviews that need to be considered; however, the

specific activities and technical reviews conducted and artifacts created can be

tailored to be commensurate with a program/project’s characteristics.

Program Transition Plan

(PTP)

The PTP sets the requirements and establishes procedures for transition of the

acquired capability to the sustainment community for operations and support. The

PTP will identify the operational and support organizations that will assume

management responsibility for controlling and maintaining the configuration of the

products/capabilities.

Requirements The RTM/RTVM is an artifact, perhaps existing within an requirements

Traceability/Traceability management system (e.g., Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System

and Verification Matrix (DOORS)), to ensure system specifications and lower level requirements trace back

(RTM/RTVM) to the ORD, MNS and CONOPS (as well as various applicable technical standards,

etc.).

Risk Management A structured approach used to oversee the program and supporting processes that

Framework (RMF) manage information security risk to organizational operations (including mission,

functions, image, and reputation), organizational assets, individuals, other

organizations, and the Nation. The RMF is a multi-level approach to risk

management that addresses security and privacy risk at the organization level, the

mission/business process level, and the information system level. The RMF is

broken down into 6 official steps. The RMF also has a Prepare step prior to Step 1

and between each consecutive Step (see NIST SP 800-37 rev 2).

Risk Management Plan Identifies the program’s approach for identifying, assessing, mitigating, and tracking (RMP) risks that have an impact on overall program cost, schedule, and/or performance and

specifies the organization and upfront activities needed for a successful risk

management program.

Rough Order of

Magnitude (ROM) Cost

Estimate

A life cycle cost estimate conducted early in an acquisition program’s life cycle. Program ROMs are used to establish whether a program’s cost is within the realm of possible materiel solutions and may be used to request funding for initial Future

Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) budget submittals. A ROM is typically

based on limited data, requires more assumptions, and has less fidelity than a LCCE.

Schedule Variance A metric for the schedule performance of a program. It is the algebraic difference

between earned value (BCWP) and planned value (BCWS) (Variance = BCWP -

11

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

BCWS). A positive value is a favorable condition while a negative value is

unfavorable.

Section 508 Compliance The Coast Guard can’t waive its Section 508 legal responsibility through policy or internal decision making. Consult the Coast Guard Accessible Systems and

Technology Program (ASTP); Section 508 Commandant Instruction 5230.60

(series) for specific guidance including roles and responsibilities. The Coast Guard

Section 508 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are located on the CG portal at

CG-61 - Section 508 (uscg.mil). The DHS Section 508 Planning Checklist for

Program Mangers replaces the former EIT Plan. New or emergent requirements are

issued through contracting acquisition Alerts.

For additional information and guidance on Section 508 compliance, contact

Commandant (CG-61) Section 508 Program Management Team at

Section.508@uscg.mil.

Supply Chain Risk SCRM is the process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating the risks associated

Management (SCRM) with the distributed and interconnected nature of Information Technology and

Operational Technology (IT/OT) product and service supply chains. SCRM covers

the entire life-cycle of a system (including design, development, distribution,

deployment, acquisition, maintenance, and destruction) as supply chain threats and

vulnerabilities may intentionally or unintentionally compromise an IT/OT product or

service at any stage.

System Engineering Post The SE PIR evaluates the actual results provided by fielded systems compared to

Implementation Review predictions in terms of cost, schedule, performance and mission outcomes; to

(SE PIR) determine the cause of major differences between planned and end results and

develop corrective courses of action as appropriate.

Systems Security System Security Engineering allows for identification and incorporation of security

Engineering (SSE) design and process requirements into risk identification and management in the

requirements trade space. SSE is an element of system engineering that applied

scientific and engineering principles to identify security vulnerabilities and

minimize or contain risks associated with these vulnerabilities through the USCG

ALF. SSE skills are required on most acquisitions whether they are IT programs

comprised of IT components, national security systems or designate platform IT

(PIT) systems.

System Safety A government management plan that defines system safety program requirements

Management Plan and ensures the implementation and accomplishment of system safety tasks and

(SSMP) activities consistent with the overall program requirements. The SSMP is developed

during the Analyze/Select Phase.

Systems Engineering (SE) Systems Engineering is an interdisciplinary engineering management process that

evolves and verifies an integrated, balanced set of system solutions as part of an

asset, system, or capability across an entire life cycle to satisfy Coast Guard needs.

The process and products of systems engineering provide the PM with a solid

technical foundation that effectively unifies, integrates, and focuses the efforts of all

stakeholders.

Systems Engineering Life

Cycle (SELC) Tailoring

Effectively apply the SELC Framework to a specific acquisition program and its

projects while balancing the need for documentation and technical reviews with

programmatic and technical risks.

12

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Term Explanation

Test and Evaluation Activity designed to obtain, verify or provide data for the evaluation of any of the

following throughout the acquisition life cycle:

1. Progress in achieving operational requirements with an emphasis on mitigating

or reducing the following operational risks:

a. Performance, at scale and under load;

b. Reliability, throughout the performance envelope;

c. Interoperability, including mission essential information exchanges;

d. Integration, including all components, subcomponents and supporting

system architecture; and,

e. Resilience, to ensure the ability of mission critical functions to withstand

and recover from disruption.

2. Operational effectiveness, suitability and resilience of the system in its intended

operational environment.

Test and Evaluation

Master Plan (TEMP)

The TEMP is the program manager’s (PM’s) primary T&E planning document. It

brings all the T&E stakeholders together to craft a plan for using T&E to support

risk management and acquisition decision making throughout the program life cycle.

Trade Space The informed decision-making actions whereby a set of candidate alternatives are

considered for selection when each alternative is able to satisfy objectives within

constraints such as performance, cost, schedule, and risk. The intent of the trade

space decision is to select the optimal solution among the candidate alternatives.

Trade Studies & Analysis Formal decision-making methodologies used to make choices and resolve conflicts

during the Systems Engineering (SE) process. An assessment must be presented to:

(a) verify correct allocation of performance requirements, (b) verify that the design

selections have been optimized and constraints identified, and (c) determine

performance requirements for lower-level functions when higher-level performance

and functional requirements cannot be readily resolved to the lower-level.

Trusted Systems and

Networks Analysis (TSN

Analysis)

A collection of analyses and assessments that seek to protect those functions and

components that are critical to conducting the system's intended mission(s) from

intentional malicious insertion-related threats and attacks. The TSN Analysis is

completed by a program by conducting a Criticality Analysis (CA), Threat

Assessment (TA), Vulnerability Assessment (VA), Risk Assessment (RA), and

selection of Protection Measures/a list of Countermeasures

Verification and

Validation (V&V)

V&V activities generate evidence to substantiate claims made about the security

capabilities, properties, vulnerabilities, and the effectiveness of security functions in

satisfying protection needs. The evidence used to substantiate claims can be

objective or subjective. For example, objective evidence could be pass-fail test

results, whereas subjective evidence is analyzed, interpreted, and perhaps combined

with other evidence to produce a result.

Work Breakdown

Structure (WBS)

The WBS is a hierarchal structure used by the programs to identify tasks required to

accomplish program objectives. These tasks include test and evaluation events,

integrated logistics support events, configuration management, and other elements

and task as necessary. The WBS is used to inform risk assessments, develop the

program schedule (IGS), and feeds the LCCE. The WBS can be based on either

MIL-STD-881 or the DHS format, which is located at:

http://coe.dhs.gov/CE_A_COE/SitePages/Tools.aspx.

Intentionally Left Blank

13

COMDTINST M5000.10G

Page Intentionally Left Blank

14