DODI 5000.02 Enclosure 9: Analysis of Alternatives (AOA)

1. PURPOSE

The AoA Assessment of potential materiel solutions to satisfy the capability need documented in the approved ICD. It focuses on identification and analysis of alternatives, Measures of Effectiveness, cost, schedule, concepts of operations, and overall risk, including the sensitivity of each alternative to possible changes in key assumptions or variables. The AoA also assesses critical technologies associated with each proposed materiel solution, including technology maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and where necessary, technology maturation and demonstration needs. The AoA will also address the fully burdened cost of fuel for each alternative, when appropriate. The AoA is normally conducted during the MSA phase of the Defense Acquisition System, is a key input to the CDD, and supports the materiel solution decision at Milestone A. The AoA may be updated for the Development RFP Release Decision Point and Milestone C review if there are changes to the design that impact AoA assumptions. assesses potential materiel solutions that could satisfy validated capability requirement(s) documented in the Initial Capabilities Document The Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) documents the DoD need for a materiel approach (or an approach that combines materiel and non-materiel solution sets) to satisfy specific capability gaps. The ICD essentially summarizes any capability analysis (using a Capabilities-Based Assessment or other method...) and defines those gaps in terms of the functional area; the relevant range of military operations; desired effects; timeframe; and recommendations. , and supports a decision on the most cost effective solution to meeting the validated capability requirement(s). In developing feasible alternatives, the AoA will identify a wide range of solutions that have a reasonable likelihood of providing the needed capability.

2. AoA PROCEDURES

a. The DCAPE The CAPE Director (DCAPE) reports directly to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, providing independent analytic advice on all aspects of the defense program, including alternative weapon systems and force structures, the development and evaluation of defense program alternatives, and the cost-effectiveness of defense systems. CAPE is responsible for the management of the Department’s programming processes and annual program review. The ultimate product of the program review is the Future Years Defense Program - the authoritative statement of what the Department plans, year by year, in terms of force structure (how many ships, brigades and divisions, aircraft squadrons and wings, etc., we will operate), procurement (how many ships, tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc., we will buy), manpower (how many people, military and civilian, we plan to employ in each of the services and defense agencies), other supporting programs (such as R&D and military construction), and what it will all cost. CAPE helps to shape the force in the long-term by providing analysis and advice on resource issues to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council as well as formulating study guidance for analyses of alternatives for major defense acquisition programs. In accordance with Table 2, DCAPE assesses Analysis of Alternatives (AoAs) for ACAT ID/IAM programs. DCAPE may be the approval authority for AoA Study Guidance and AoA Study Plans; DCAPE is the approval authority for Independent Cost Estimates for ACAT ID and IAM programs. Enclosure 9 describes DCAPE roles and responsibilities in Analysis of Alternatives. DCAPE responsibilities are identified in DoD Directive 5105.84. develops and approves study guidance for the AoA Assessment of potential materiel solutions to satisfy the capability need documented in the approved ICD. It focuses on identification and analysis of alternatives, Measures of Effectiveness, cost, schedule, concepts of operations, and overall risk, including the sensitivity of each alternative to possible changes in key assumptions or variables. The AoA also assesses critical technologies associated with each proposed materiel solution, including technology maturity, integration risk, manufacturing feasibility, and where necessary, technology maturation and demonstration needs. The AoA will also address the fully burdened cost of fuel for each alternative, when appropriate. The AoA is normally conducted during the MSA phase of the Defense Acquisition System, is a key input to the CDD, and supports the materiel solution decision at Milestone A. The AoA may be updated for the Development RFP Release Decision Point and Milestone C review if there are changes to the design that impact AoA assumptions. for potential and designated Acquisition Category (ACAT) I and IA programs and for each joint military or business requirement for which the Chairman of the JROC Assists the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) in identifying, assessing, and validating joint military requirements to meet the National Military Strategy (NMS), and in identifying the core mission area associated with each requirement; ensuring consideration of trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives for joint military requirements; in establishing and assigning priority levels for joint military requirements; in reviewing the estimated level of resources required in fulfilling each joint military requirement and in ensuring resource levels are consistent with the level of priority assigned to such requirement; and in establishing an objective for the overall period within which an initial operational capability should be delivered to meet each joint military requirement. The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS) is the Chairman of the JROC. Other JROC members are officers in the grade of general or admiral from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. The JROC oversees the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), and validates JCIDS documents for JROC Interest programs. For these programs, the JROC also validates the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and Sustainment Key System Attributes (KSAs) included in the Capability Development Document (CDD), the Capability Production Document (CPD), and the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), and supports Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) reviews. or the Deputy Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense (DCMO) is the validation authority. In developing the guidance, the DCAPE solicits the advice of other DoD officials and ensures that the guidance requires, at a minimum:

(1) Full consideration of possible tradeoffs among life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance objectives (including mandatory KPPs Performance attribute of a system considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability. KPPs are contained in the Capability Development Document (CDD) and the Capability Production Document (CPD) and are included verbatim in the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB). KPPs are expressed in term of parameters which reflect Measures of Performance (MOPs) using a threshold/objective format. KPPs must be measurable, testable, and support efficient and effective Test and Evaluation (T&E). Mandatory KPPs are specified in the JCIDS Manual.) for each alternative considered.

(2) An assessment of whether the joint military requirement can be met in a manner consistent with the cost and schedule objectives recommended by the JROC or other requirements validation authority.

(3) Consideration of affordability analysis results and affordability goals if established by the MDA.

b. The DCAPE provides the AoA Study Guidance to the DoD Component or organization designated by the MDA or, for ACAT IA programs, to the office of the principal staff assistant responsible for the mission area, prior to the Materiel Development Decision (MDD) A review that is the formal entry point into the acquisition process and is mandatory for all programs. A successful MDD may approve entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific and statutory requirements but will normally be followed by a Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) phase. The principal documents at this decision point are the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) and Analysis of Alternatives Study Guidance and Plan. A successful MDD normally does not mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated. and in sufficient time to permit preparation of the study plan prior to the decision event. The study plan will be coordinated with the MDA and approved by the DCAPE prior to the MDD. The designated DoD Component or other organization or the principal staff assistant will designate responsibility for completion of the study plan and the AoA.

c. The final AoA written report will be provided to the DCAPE not later than 60 calendar days prior to the Milestone A review (or the next decision point or milestone as designated by the MDA). Not later than 15 business days prior to the Milestone A review, DCAPE evaluates the AoA and provides a memorandum to the MDA, with copies to the DoD Component head or other organization or principal staff assistant assessing whether the analysis was completed consistent with DCAPE study guidance and the DCAPE-approved study plan. In the memorandum, the DCAPE assesses:

(1) The extent to which the AoA:

(a) Examines sufficient feasible alternatives.

(b) Considers tradeoffs among cost, schedule, sustainment, and required capabilities for each alternative considered.

(c) Achieves the affordability goals established at the MDD A review that is the formal entry point into the acquisition process and is mandatory for all programs. A successful MDD may approve entry into the acquisition management system at any point consistent with phase-specific and statutory requirements but will normally be followed by a MSA phase. The principal documents at this decision point are the ICD and Analysis of Alternatives Study Guidance and Plan. A successful MDD normally does not mean that a new acquisition program has been initiated. and with what risks.

(d) Uses sound methodology.

(e) Discusses key assumptions and variables and sensitivity to changes in these.

(f) Bases conclusions or recommendations, if any, on the results of the analysis.

(g) Considers the fully burdened cost of energy (FBCE), in cases where FBCE is a significant discriminator among alternatives.

(2) Whether additional analysis is required.

(3) How the AoA results will be used to influence the direction of the program.

d. The final AoA will also be provided to and reviewed by the requirements validation authority prior to the Milestone A decision or the release of the RFP A document used in negotiated acquisitions to communicate Government requirements to prospective contractors and to solicit proposals. RFPs for competitive acquisitions describe the Government’s requirement; anticipated terms and conditions that will apply to the contract; information required to be in the offeror’s proposal; and factors and significant sub-factors that will be used to evaluate the proposal and their relative importance.  for the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction Phase activities. The requirements validation authority will, at a minimum:

(1) Assess how well the recommended alternative satisfies validated requirements in the most cost effective manner for the warfighter.

(2) Identify any opportunities to adjust or align capability requirements for better synergy across the joint force capabilities.

(3) In accordance with the responsibilities identified in Title 10, U.S.C. (Reference (h)), offer alternative recommendations to best meet the validated capability requirements.