The conceptualization, initiation, design, development, test, contracting, production, deployment, integrated product support, modification, and disposal of weapons and other systems, supplies, or services (including construction) to satisfy DoD needs, i intended for use in, or in support of, military missions.

All programs using the Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) pathway are designated by an Acquisition Category (ACAT). The ACAT identifies the program’s MDA, required processes, and documents. The thresholds were recently updated in the FY26 NDAA Section 1804.

ACAT I

• MDAP (Section 4201 of Title 10, U.S.C.)
  • Dollar value for all increments of the program: estimated by the DAE to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, and test and evaluation of more than $1 billion in FY24 constant dollars or, for procurement, of more than $4.5 billion in FY24 constant dollars
  • MDA designation
• MDA designation as special interest
• ACAT ID: DAE
• ACAT IB: SAE
• ACAT IC: Head of the DoD Component or, if delegated, the CAE

ACAT II

• Does not meet criteria for ACAT I
• Major system (Section 3041 of Title 10, U.S.C.)
  • Dollar value: estimated by the DoD Component head to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, and test and evaluation of more  than $275 million in FY24 constant dollars, or for procurement of more than $1.3 billion in FY24 constant dollars
  • MDA designation (Section 3041 of Title 10, U.S.C.) CAE or the individual designated by the CAE

ACAT III

• Does not meet dollar value thresholds for ACAT II or above
• Is not designated a “major system” by the MDA
• Designated by the CAE

Source: DODI 5000.85

A formal memo signed by the Decision Authority to capture the key decisions and program direction typically following a milestone review.

Ensures acquisition programs consider military intelligence on threats and emerging capabilities to shape designs and investments. 

This pathway is intended to identify the required services, research the potential contractors, contract for the services, and manage performance. The pathway activities are broken into three phases: planning, developing, and executing. The seven steps ensure the use of proven, repeatable processes and procedures contributing to successful service acquisitions. It is one of the six acquisition pathways in the Adaptive Acquisition Framework. 

See Acquisition of Services Pathway

A document outlining the approach to manage an acquisition, including cost, schedule, and technical goals. It aligns stakeholders for program success.

A structured effort to develop, produce, and deploy a system or service to meet a capability need. It follows defined processes to deliver solutions. Typically part of a contracting package, separate from an acquisition strategy. 

The APB documents the program cost, schedule, and performance baselines, and is the fundamental binding agreement between the MDA, the CAE if applicable, the PEO, and the PM. The PM is responsible for developing the APB. KPPs from the validated CDD are listed, verbatim, in the APB. The APB serves as the basis for reporting to the MDA through the DoD management information system.

Source: DODI 5000.85

Describes the Program Manager's plan to achieve program execution and programmatic goals across the entire program life cycle. Summarizes the overall approach to acquiring the capability (to include the program schedule, structure, risks, funding, and the business strategy). Contains sufficient detail to allow senior leadership and the MDA to assess whether the strategy makes good business sense, effectively implements laws and policies, and reflects management's priorities. Once approved by the MDA, the Acquisition Strategy provides a basis for more detailed planning. The strategy evolves over time and should continuously reflect the current status and desired goals of the program. Source DODD 5135.02

A series of six acquisition pathways that enable multiple acquisition approaches that provide capability to the user while capitalizing on advanced acquisition methods and improving the DoD’s ability to benefit from commercial innovation. There six pathways are: 

1. Urgent Capability Acquisition (JUONs, JEONs, and UONs)
2. Middle Tier of Acquisition (Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Fielding)
3. Major Capability Acquisition
4. Software Acquisition Pathway
5. Defense Business Systems
6. Acquisition of Services

Visit the AAF for more information. 

The ability to acquire and sustain a system within budget while meeting performance requirements. It ensures cost-effective solutions over time.

Agile software development is an iterative approach to creating software, emphasizing flexibility, collaboration, and rapid delivery of functional components. It involves short development cycles, or sprints, allowing teams to adapt to changing requirements, incorporate feedback, and deliver incremental updates. For defense acquisition, agile enhances responsiveness, reduces risks, and accelerates deployment of mission-critical software by prioritizing user needs and continuous improvement.

The mutually agreed terms and conditions of the parties to an OT. Absent exceptional circumstances, it will take the form of a legally binding written instrument.

Source: DOD OT Guide

A warranted individual with authority to enter into, administer, or terminate Other Transactions (OTs). To be appointed as an AO, the individual must possess a level of responsibility, business acumen, and judgment that enables them to operate in the relatively unstructured environment of OTs. AOs need not be Contracting Officers, unless required by the Component’s appointment process.

Source: DOD OT Guide

The statute that prohibits obligating funds in excess of, or in advance of, an appropriation. Violations require reporting to Congress and can carry penalties for the responsible official.

Congressional approval of funds for specific DoD purposes, like research or procurement. Funds are time-limited and categorized by use.

A provision of legal authority by an act of the Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation usually follows enactment of authorizing legislation. An appropriation act is the most common means of  providing budget authority (see Budget Authority). Appropriations do not represent cash actually set aside in the Treasury for purposes specified in the appropriation act; they represent limitations of amounts which agencies may obligate during the time period specified in the respective appropriation acts.

Calculated by dividing total program procurement cost by the number of items to be procured. The APUC procurement quantity includes any EMD quantities that have been refurbished using procurement dollars. APUC is displayed in constant dollars of a base year fixed for each program. Total procurement cost includes flyaway, rollaway, sailaway cost (that is, recurring and nonrecurring costs associated with production of an item such as hardware/software, systems engineering (SE), engineering changes and warranties), plus the costs of procuring technical data (TD), training, support equipment, and initial spares.

An assessment that quantifies or qualifies the value a program, investment, or capability delivers relative to its cost. In acquisition, benefit analysis supports source selection, trade-off decisions, and should-cost initiatives.

A BAA is a general solicitation as defined at 10 U.S.C. 2303. BAAs should only be used to solicit for research and development (R&D) if the Government reserves the right to award a contract or another type of agreement, such as a grant, cooperative agreement, or other transaction.  This must be clearly articulated in the solicitation.

Source: DOD OT Guide

A subdivision of appropriations specifying the phase of work funded, such as basic research or system development. It organizes funding allocation.

• 6.1 Basic Research
• 6.2 Applied Research
• 6.3 Advanced Technology Development
• 6.4 Adv. Component Development and Prototypes
• 6.5 System Development and Demonstration
• 6.6 RDT&E Management Support
• 6.7 Operational Systems Development
• 6.8 Software and Digital Technology Pilot Program

Funding in codes 6.1 to 6.3 is referred to by DOD as the science and technology (S&T) budget. In contrast, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.7 funds are focused on the application of existing scientific and technical knowledge to meet current or near term operational needs. DOD added budget activity 6.8 in its FY2021 budget request to support software and digital technology pilot programs.

See Budget Activity for additional details

The justification documents DoW submits with its budget request. The P-1 lists procurement programs and the R-1 lists RDT&E programs by Program Element. Analysts use both to trace funding to specific efforts.

The DoD component's budget submissions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) showing budget requirements for inclusion in the DoD budget during the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process.

The ability to complete a task or execute a course of action under specified conditions and level of performance.   

The inability to meet or exceed a capability requirement, resulting in an associated operational risk until closed or mitigated. The gap may be the result of no fielded capability, lack of proficiency or sufficiency in a fielded capability solution, or the need to replace a fielded capability solution to prevent a future gap.  

A collection of grouped capabilities as structured by Joint Capability Areas and the associated doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities programs. (DoDD 7045.20) 

A continuous and persistent process that enables decision makers to manage resources and activities to maximize accomplishment of desired outcomes aligned to strategic priorities. Capability Portfolio Management incorporates the perspective of force sufficiency and suitability, acquisition and technology feasibility and sustainability, and budget affordability. Portfolio management accounts and weighs overall goals, timing, tolerance for risk, interdependencies, resource availability, and change in the environment over time to drive mission results and enhance operational capabilities within given constraints. 

Measures of effectiveness in the form of mission focused task statements written in “task, condition, standard” format in accordance with the Universal Joint Task List or equivalent Department of War component task list. CRs are what needs to be done (the metric) and to what level (the initial value). If a CR is not satisfied by a capability solution, then there is an associated capability gap.  

A CRD is a document capturing overarching joint capability requirements developed at the joint level and derived from joint concepts, joint operational problems, and joint force design through other Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) functions (i.e., Joint Force Design, Joint Capability Integration, Combatant Command Requirements). The Capstone Requirements Document (CRD) captures the operational prioritization of the Capability Requirements within the capstone for iterative analysis under the Department of War’s Capability Portfolio Management process. The collective group of CRDs represent the JROC’s requirements portfolio.  

A product or service available in the commercial market that meets DoD needs with little modification. It is acquired using simplified procedures.

(1) Any item, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and-

• Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or
• Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public;

(2) Any item that evolved from an item described in paragraph (1) of this definition through advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available in the commercial marketplace, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfy the delivery requirements under a Government solicitation;

(3) Any item that would satisfy a criterion expressed in paragraphs(1) or (2) of this definition, but for-

• Modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace; or
• Minor modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made to meet Federal Government requirements. Minor modifications means modifications that do not significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristics of an item or component, or change the purpose of a process. Factors to be considered in determining whether a modification is minor include the value and size of the modification and the comparative value and size of the final product. Dollar values and percentages may be used as guideposts, but are not conclusive evidence that a modification is minor;

(4) Any combination of items meeting the requirements of paragraphs(1), (2), (3), or (5) of this definition that are of a type customarily combined and sold in combination to the general public;

(5) Installation services, maintenance services, repair services, training services, and other services if-

• Such services are procured for support of an item referred to in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this definition, regardless of whether such services are provided by the same source or at the same time as the item; and
• The source of such services provides similar services contemporaneously to the general public under terms and conditions similar to those offered to the Federal Government;

(6) Services of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace based on established catalog or market prices for specific tasks performed or specific outcomes to be achieved and under standard commercial terms and conditions. For purposes of these services-

• "Catalog price" means a price included in a catalog, price list, schedule, or other form that is regularly maintained by the manufacturer or vendor, is either published or otherwise available for inspection by customers, and states prices at which sales are currently, or were last, made to a significant number of buyers constituting the general public; and
• "Market prices" means current prices that are established in the course of ordinary trade between buyers and sellers free to bargain and that can be substantiated through competition or from sources independent of the offerors.

(7) Any item, combination of items, or service referred to in paragraphs(1) through (6) of this definition, notwithstanding the fact that the item, combination of items, or service is transferred between or among separate divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor; or

(8) A nondevelopmental item, if the procuring agency determines the item was developed exclusively at private expense and sold in substantial quantities, on a competitive basis, to multiple State and local governments or to multiple foreign governments.

Source: FAR Part 2.101

Means any item of supply (including construction material) that is–

• A commercial item
• Sold in substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace; and
• Offered to the Government, under a contract or subcontract at any tier, without modification, in the same form in which it is sold in the commercial marketplace; and

Does not include bulk cargo, as defined in 46 U.S.C. 40102(4), such as agricultural products and petroleum products.

Source: FAR Part 2.101

10 U.S.C. § 3458

See the CSO page for more information. 

Soliciting multiple offers to ensure fair pricing, quality, and innovation in acquisitions. Full and open competition is standard unless justified otherwise.
FAR Part 6

The senior acquisition official in each Military Department or defense agency. In the Military Departments, the CAE is the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE).

The Office of the Secretary of War, Military Departments, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Combatant Commands, Office of the Inspector General of the Department of War (DoW), DoW agencies, DoW field activities, and all other organizational entities in DoW.

(DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) 

Concepts identify required capabilities. These required capabilities are matched to current or programmed resources. If no resource exists that can match the capability, a gap exists. A process should then take place to fill that gap within the analytical framework. Also called CRC.  

When used in the context of force design and development, applies operating concepts against specific scenarios to provide the basis for wargaming, modeling, experimentation, and assessment activities used to refine that operating concept, inform cost-benefit analysis, and ultimately support doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy decisions. 

A military operation that (a) is designated by the Secretary of War as an operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force; or (b) results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty of members of the uniformed services under section 688, 12301(a), 12302, 12304, 12304a, 12305, or 12406 of Title 10; Chapter 13 of Title 10; section 3713 of Title 14; or any other provision of law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress. (Title 10, U.S. Code, section 101) 

A verbal or graphic statement that clearly and concisely expresses what the commander intends to accomplish and how it will be done using available resources. Also called CONOPS. 

Source: Joint Publication 5.0

A process to control and document changes to a system’s design throughout its lifecycle. It ensures consistency and traceability.

Legislation enacted by the Congress to provide budget authority for specific ongoing activities in cases where the regular fiscal year appropriation for such activities has not been enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year. The continuing resolution usually provides formulas which the agency uses to compute amounts available for continuing programs at minimum levels. Formulas typically include obligation rates of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both Houses of the Congress.

When those annual appropriations acts are not enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e., by October 1), one or more continuing appropriations acts (commonly known as continuing resolutions or CRs) may be enacted to provide temporary funding to continue certain programs and activities until action on the regular appropriations acts is completed.

CRs provide funding for certain activities (coverage), which are typically specified with reference to the prior fiscal year’s appropriations acts. CRs provide budget authority for a specified duration of time. This duration may be as short as a single day or as long as the remainder of the fiscal year. CRs provide funds based on an overall funding rate. The use of budget authority provided in the CR has been prohibited for new activities not funded in the previous fiscal year. The duration and amount of funds in the CR, and purposes for which they may be used for specified activities, may be adjusted through anomalies. Legislative provisions—which create, amend, or extend other laws—have been included in some instances.

Source: CRS report on Continuing Resolutions

An authorization model that replaces periodic reaccreditation with ongoing monitoring of security controls in a DevSecOps pipeline. It lets software teams deploy updates without restarting the Authority to Operate (ATO) process.

A legal agreement between the government and a contractor for goods or services. It specifies deliverables, terms, and obligations.
FAR Part 2

A government official authorized to execute and manage contracts. They ensure compliance and protect DoD interests.
FAR Part 2

The system for the government to capture contractor performance. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contractor performance information be collected (FAR Part 42.15) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 15). Source selection officials rely on clear and timely evaluations of contractor performance to make informed business decisions when awarding government contracts and orders. This information is critical to ensuring that the Federal government only does business with companies that provide quality products and services in support of the agency’s missions.

Source: CPARS Guide and CPARS Website

A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) authorizes federal labs to enter into agreements with other federal agencies, state/local government, industry, non-profits, and universities for licensing agreements for lab developed inventions or intellectual property to commercialize products or processes originating in federal labs.

• Labs may seek an industry partner with resources to successfully market invention or commercialize
• Labs may seek an industry partner to stimulate a market for new technology
• Non-federal/industry partner may seek government lab to further develop unique resources

Common Applications

• Research Development & Demonstration (RD&D) collaboration and technology advancement efforts

Source: Contracting Cone

Rules ensuring consistent cost allocation in contracts to prevent overcharging. They apply to large contracts for transparency.
FAR Part 30

A contract reimbursing allowable costs plus a fixed fee. It is used for uncertain costs.
FAR Part 16

A review assessing a system’s final design to ensure it meets requirements before production. It evaluates technical maturity and risks.

The Critical Design Review (CDR), which occurs during the EMD phase, confirms the system design is stable and is expected to meet system performance requirements, confirms the system is on track to achieve affordability and should-cost goals as evidenced by the detailed design documentation and establishes the initial product baseline.

The CDR provides the acquisition community with evidence that the system, down to the lowest system element level, has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements of the system performance specification as derived from the Capability Development Document (CDD) within current cost and schedule constraints. At this point in the program, system performance expectations are based on analysis and any prototype testing/demonstration efforts conducted at the system element and/or system level. Demonstration of a complete system is not expected to be accomplished by this point.

See CDR in MCA for more info.

Threat capability or threshold established collaboratively by the requirements sponsor and the capability developer, changes to which could critically impact the effectiveness and survivability of the proposed system. Also called CIP. (DIEM Standard lli) Force based on future technology. (DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, CJCSI 3010.02).   

The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) is a Department of Defense framework to assess and certify the cybersecurity practices of contractors handling sensitive defense information. It establishes five maturity levels, from basic to advanced, ensuring protection against cyber threats. For defense acquisition, CMMC ensures contractors meet required security standards, safeguarding data and systems critical to mission success while promoting a secure supply chain.

The official responsible for approving major acquisition decisions, like milestones. Authority depends on program category.

A senior DoD group advising on major acquisition programs (ACAT I). It supports the Milestone Decision Authority.

The senior DoD official UnderSecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)) overseeing acquisition policies and major programs. They ensure alignment with strategic goals.

The individual responsible for supervising the DAS. The DAE takes precedence on all acquisition matters after the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment is the DAE. 

See the Workforce section of the Master the Fundamentals page for more information. 

?The Defense Appropriations Bill is an annual U.S. Congressional legislation that allocates funding for the Department of Defense’s operations, personnel, acquisition programs, and research activities. It specifies budgets for procuring systems, maintaining readiness, and supporting military missions. For defense acquisition, the bill provides the financial resources necessary to develop, purchase, and sustain defense systems, ensuring alignment with national security priorities and fiscal accountability.

CRS Report: Defense Authorization and Appropriations Bills: FY1961-2021

An Adaptive Acquisition Framework pathway used to acquire and improve DoD business information systems and business capabilities. Governed by DoDI 5000.75, the DBS pathway employs the Business Capability Acquisition Cycle (BCAC) to deliver business capabilities through incremental releases while maximizing the use of commercial solutions and minimizing customization. 

DFARS Website

DFAS Website

The Defense Production Act Title III program is one of three active authorities in the Defense Production Act, which was first signed into law in 1950 and was last renewed in 2018. The Title III program provides the President broad authority to ensure the timely availability of essential domestic industrial resources to support national defense and homeland security requirements through the use of highly tailored economic incentives. Specifically, the program is designed to create, maintain, protect, expand, or restore domestic industrial base capabilities.

DPA Title III Overview

Authorized under 10 U.S.C. §2208, a Defense Working Capital Fund (DWCF) is a type of revolving fund that is intended to operate as a selfsupporting entity to fund business-like activities (e.g., acquiring parts and supplies, equipment maintenance, transporting personnel, research and development) for the Department of Defense (DOD). DWCF transactions move hundreds of billions of dollars within DOD annually.

According to DOD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) 7000.14-R, revolving fund accounts finance a “continuing cycle of business-type operations” by incurring “obligations and expenditures that generate receipts.” DWCFs are designed to break even over the long term through fees charged for products and services provided. These funds are widely used across the DOD in an effort to provide continuous base-support services, utilities, and industrial capabilities.

DWFCs offer benefits and flexibility to government procurement. They generally operate without fiscal year
limitations (i.e., amounts in a DWCF account do not expire); they facilitate the aggregation of orders, allowing the government to leverage its purchasing power; and they allow for the establishment of product inventories that can reduce delivery time.

Source: Defense Primer: Defense Working Capital Funds, CRS

The Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund (DWWCF) consists of five activity groups. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) operates three of these
activity groups, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) operates one activity group, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) operates one activity group. 

Defense Working Capital Funds FY22 Budget Estimates

DoD's way of representing an enterprise architecture that enables stakeholders to focus on specific areas of interests in the enterprise, while retaining sight of the big picture. To assist decision-makers, DoDAF provides the means of abstracting essential information from the underlying complexity and presenting it in a way that maintains coherence and consistency. One of the principal objectives is to present this information in a way that is understandable to the many stakeholder communities involved in developing, delivering, and sustaining capabilities in support of the stakeholder's mission. It does so by dividing the problem space into manageable pieces, according to the stakeholder's viewpoint, further defined as DoDAF-described Models.

DoDAF organizes the DoDAF-described Models into the following viewpoints:

• The All Viewpoint describes the overarching aspects of architecture context that relate to all viewpoints.
• The Capability Viewpoint articulates the capability requirements, the delivery timing, and the deployed capability.
• The Data and Information Viewpoint articulates the data relationships and alignment structures in the architecture content for the capability and operational requirements, system engineering processes, and systems and services.
• The Operational Viewpoint includes the operational scenarios, activities, and requirements that support capabilities.
• The Project Viewpoint describes the relationships between operational and capability requirements and the various projects being implemented. The Project Viewpoint also details dependencies among capability and operational requirements, system engineering processes, systems design, and services design within the Defense Acquisition System process. An example is the Vcharts in Chapter 4 of the Defense Acquisition Guide.
• The Services Viewpoint is the design for solutions articulating the Performers, Activities, Services, and their Exchanges, providing for or supporting operational and capability functions.
• The Standards Viewpoint articulates the applicable operational, business, technical, and industry policies, standards, guidance, constraints, and forecasts that apply to capability and operational requirements, system engineering processes, and systems and services.
• The Systems Viewpoint, for Legacy support, is the design for solutions articulating the systems, their composition, interconnectivity, and context providing for or supporting operational and capability functions.

Classifying new material based on existing classified information. It maintains security consistency.
32 CFR 117.3

Dual-use with respect to products, services, standards, processes, or acquisition practices, means products, services, standards, processes, or acquisition practices, respectively, that are capable of meeting requirements for military and nonmilitary applications.

Dual-use critical technology means a critical technology that has military applications and nonmilitary applications.

Source: 10 USC Subtitle A, Part V, Subpart I

DevSecOps (Development, Security, Operations) is an approach in defense acquisition that integrates software development, cybersecurity, and operations into a continuous, collaborative process. It emphasizes automating and embedding security practices throughout the development lifecycle to deliver secure, reliable software faster. For defense acquisition, DevSecOps enhances mission agility, reduces vulnerabilities, and ensures systems meet operational and cybersecurity requirements efficiently, supporting rapid deployment in military environments.

See the Digital Engineering page for more information. 

A tool to measure program performance by comparing planned vs. actual cost and schedule. It helps control costs and delays.

A phase to mature a system’s design and prepare for production. It includes testing and risk reduction.

The explicit description and documentation of the current and desired relationships among business and management processes and IT

Any capability provided for broad use across the DoD that enables awareness of, access to, or delivers information across DoD networks. Enterprise services may be provided by any source within the DoD or any trusted partners. Enterprise services providing data or information must be authoritative and, therefore, trusted as being accurate, complete, and having assured integrity. Authoritative information has a pedigree that can be traced to a trusted source. Enterprise services include environments that are composed of multiple service layers such as the infrastructure, infrastructure services, platform services, common user services, enterprise service management, and mission assurance services.

A program requirement that ensures systems are designed, built, and operated to minimize environmental impact and protect the health and safety of users, maintainers, and the surrounding community. ESOH considerations are integrated into systems engineering from the earliest phases and tracked through Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (PESHE) documentation.

Conditions that must be met to complete a program phase or milestone. They ensure readiness to proceed.

A structured, iterative process of testing concepts, technologies, and operational approaches in realistic or simulated environments to inform requirements and acquisition decisions. DoD experimentation efforts, including Project Convergence and similar exercises, accelerate learning and reduce the risk of committing to unvalidated solutions.

The primary regulation for federal acquisitions, covering contracting, pricing, and administration. It ensures compliance and consistency.

It is current going through a comprehensive overhaul due to an executive order to aggressively streamline it. 
FAR

A research organization sponsored and funded by the federal government to meet long-term research or systems engineering needs that cannot be met by the private sector alone. FFRDCs, such as RAND, MITRE, and Aerospace Corporation, operate under long-term contracts and provide independent, objective analysis free from commercial conflicts of interest.

The DoD regulation (DoD 7000.14-R) that governs the department's financial management policies and procedures, including appropriations law, budget execution, and accounting standards. The FMR is the authoritative reference for program managers and financial managers navigating DoD's complex budget and obligation rules.

A contract with a fixed price, placing risk on the contractor. It is used for well-defined requirements.
FAR Part 16

A fixed-price contract with a target cost, target profit, ceiling price, and share ratio that adjusts final profit based on cost performance. The contractor bears all costs above the ceiling.

Authority under 10 U.S.C. 4022(f) to award a production contract or OT without further competition to a participant in a successfully completed prototype OT. The original prototype award must have used competitive procedures.

The government-to-government process through which the U.S. sells defense articles, services, and training to foreign governments and international organizations. FMS cases are administered by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and executed through DoD acquisition organizations on behalf of the purchasing nation.

A process allowing all qualified vendors to compete, maximizing value. Exceptions require justification.
FAR Part 6

Primarily a historical acquisition term associated with legacy Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs, referring to the Milestone Decision Authority's approval to deploy a software or information-system increment for operational use.

The condition in which a system or unit has been delivered, trained, and integrated to the point where it can perform its full range of intended missions. FOC is a contractual and operational milestone distinct from Initial Operational Capability and is typically defined in the Capability Development Document.

The production phase in which a system is manufactured at the planned annual rate following successful operational testing and a Full Rate Production Decision Review. FRP authorization is contingent on demonstrated performance, acceptable cost, and adequate supply chain readiness.

The milestone review, occurring after successful OT&E, at which the Decision Authority approves transition from Low Rate Initial Production to full rate production. The FRPDR confirms that the system meets operational requirements, production is stable, and life cycle support is in place.

The Future Years Defense Program is the program and financial plan for the DoW as approved by SECWAR. The FYDP arrays cost data, manpower and force structure over a 6-year period (force structure for an additional 3 years), portraying this data by major force program for DoD internal review for the program and budget review submission. It is also provided to the Congress in conjunction with the President’s budget.

Technology developed by or for the government that is available for reuse by other government programs. GOTS reduces development cost but can introduce sustainment challenges if the original developer is no longer maintaining the baseline.

A standardized architectural framework developed by the government to guide the design and procurement of systems within a specific domain. GRAs establish common interfaces, standards, and open system principles that enable competition and modular upgrades.

A pre-competed, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract vehicle available to all federal agencies for information technology products and services. GWACs streamline the IT acquisition process by establishing pre-qualified vendors and negotiated terms, reducing the time from requirement to contract award.
FAR Part 2

A systems engineering discipline that addresses the interactions between humans and systems to optimize performance, reduce errors, and minimize training and support requirements. HSI encompasses manpower, personnel, training, human factors engineering, safety, occupational health, and habitability.

Categories (IL2, IL4, IL5, IL6) set by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) that determine what data a cloud service may host, from public information up to classified SECRET.

A contract vehicle that provides for an indefinite quantity of supplies or services over a fixed period, with orders placed as requirements arise. IDIQs are used to satisfy recurring or unpredictable needs and can be structured as single-award or multiple-award vehicles, the latter enabling ongoing competition among qualified vendors.

A cost estimate prepared by an office independent of the program manager, typically the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, to provide an unbiased assessment of program cost. ICEs are required at major milestone reviews and serve as a check on optimism in program office estimates.

ITRAs:

• Provide a view of program technical risk, independent of the program and the chain of command leading to the MDA.
• Are conducted on all MDAPs before approval of Milestone A, Milestone B, and any decision to enter into low rate initial production or full-rate production.
• Pursuant to Section 2448b of Title 10, U.S.C., are required for programs either initiated or having a Milestone A after October 1, 2017. For programs initiated or having a Milestone A before October 1, 2017, ITRAs are regulatory and may be waived at the discretion of the USD(R&E). Formal requests will provide appropriate justification and will be submitted through the MDA.
• Consider the full spectrum of technology, engineering, and integration risk. These areas could include mission capability, technology, system development, MOSA, software, security, manufacturing, sustainment, and their potential impacts to cost, schedule, and performance. For ITRAs conducted before Milestone A, identifies critical technologies and manufacturing processes that need to be matured. Subsequent ITRAs will re-assess technology and manufacturing process maturity, accounting for demonstrations in relevant environments.

See ITRAs in MCA for more info.

That part of the total private- and government-owned industrial production and depot-level equipment and maintenance capacity in the United States and its territories and possessions and Canada. It is or will be made available in an emergency for the manufacture of items required by the U.S. military services and selected allies.

A JCIDS document that identifies a capability gap, describes the operational context, and recommends a range of potential materiel and non-materiel solutions. The ICD initiates the materiel solution analysis process and is the trigger for an AoA.

The point at which a unit or system has the minimum essential personnel, equipment, and training to begin performing its intended mission. IOC is typically defined in program documentation and represents the first threshold at which operational use can begin, preceding FOC.

Senior leadership forums used to review the health, performance, and strategic alignment of portfolios of related programs across a Service or OSD component. IAPRs support resourcing decisions and identify programs requiring intervention.

A cross-functional team of program stakeholders, including engineering, contracting, logistics, and user representatives, that collaboratively manages a program or technical challenge. IPTs improve decision quality by integrating diverse expertise early and reducing the rework caused by siloed decision-making.

The legal rights associated with technical data, computer software, patents, and other creative works developed during or prior to a program. IP rights determination is a critical acquisition decision that affects competition, sustainment, and the government's ability to modify or reprocure a system.

Acquisition activities that involve foreign governments, international organizations, or non-U.S. contractors, including foreign military sales, cooperative development programs, and cross-border supply chain arrangements. International acquisition requires compliance with export control laws, technology transfer agreements, and security cooperation policies.

The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide data, information, materiel, and services to, and accept the same from, other systems, units, or forces, and to use the data, information, materiel, and services exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together. IT interoperability includes both the technical exchange of information and the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that exchange of information as required for mission accomplishment. Interoperability is more than just information exchange. It includes systems, processes, procedures, organizations, and missions over the life cycle and must be balanced with cybersecurity.

A standardized DoD taxonomy used to organize and analyze military capabilities for portfolio management, capability assessment, investment analysis, and force development.

The former Department of Defense requirements process used from 2003 to 2025 to identify, validate, and prioritize military capability requirements and capability gaps.  As part of DoD requirements reform: 

• The Department directed the disestablishment of JCIDS. JCIDS is now primarily a historical term. 
• The 2021 JCIDS Manual was cancelled and replaced by the Manual for the Joint Force Requirements Process (JFRP). The transition became effective on 15 January 2026 with publication of new Joint Staff policy and guidance. 
• The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) was reoriented away from validating large numbers of Service requirements and toward higher-level joint force priorities, capability gaps, and portfolio management. 

Urgent Operational Needs that are identified by a CCMD, CJCS, or VCJCS as inherently joint and impacting an anticipated contingency operation. If left unfulfilled, JEONs result in capability gaps potentially resulting in loss of life or critical mission failure.

A capability required to satisfy the roles, functions, missions, or tasks of the Joint Force in support of current or future joint force operations. 

A grouping of capabilities and activities that enable joint force commanders to synchronize, integrate, and direct joint operations. (JP 3-0) 

An immediate Joint CCMD capability requirement that, if left unfulfilled, will result in certain death and/or pose unacceptable risks to a primary objective of ongoing or imminent operations. 

 The collective capabilities across the joint force, including both joint and force-specific capabilities that are available to conduct military operations.  

A challenge across the joint force in achieving an assigned military objective based on current doctrine, emerging threats, or future concepts; may include limitations in capabilities, capacity, resources, or the ability to effectively and efficiently coordinate across the joint force, with another Combatant Command, or among joint military capabilities. (title 10, U.S. Code, section 181(b)) 

An acquisition program funded and managed by more than one DoD Component (military Service).

The senior Department of Defense body established under Title 10 to advise on and prioritize joint military capability requirements. Under the 2026 Joint Force Requirements Process (JFRP), the JROC's primary focus shifted from validating individual Service requirements to identifying Joint Force Key Operational Problems, prioritizing capability gaps, supporting capability portfolio management, and aligning force development with the Joint Warfighting Concept and national defense priorities.

UONs that are identified by a CCMD, CJCS, or VCJCS as inherently joint and impacting an ongoing contingency operation. If left unfulfilled, JUONs result in capability gaps potentially resulting in loss of life or critical mission failure.

The collective capabilities across the joint force, including both joint and force-specific capabilities, that are available to conduct military operations.

A performance requirement that is critical or essential to ensure interoperability or fulfill a capability gap of more than one armed force, Defense Agency, or other entity of the Department of Defense, or impacts the joint force in other ways such as logistics.

The DoW’s overarching, threat-informed operational concept that describes how the Joint Force will fight and operate across all domains and warfighting functions to achieve military objectives against future adversaries. The JWC provides a common framework to guide capability development, force design, experimentation, acquisition investments, and operational concepts across the Services and Combatant Commands. It helps answer the question: "How must the Joint Force fight in the future?" 

The acquisition document required by FAR Subpart 6.3 to support sole-source or other noncompetitive contract awards. The J&A documents the legal basis for limiting competition, certifies the supporting facts, and obtains approval from the appropriate authority. Common examples for using a J&A include: 

• Only one responsible source exists. 
• Unusual and compelling urgency. 
• Industrial mobilization needs. 
• International agreement requirements. 
• Statutory authorization for noncompetitive acquisition. 

A performance attribute of a system that is considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability. Failure to meet a validated KPP threshold may call into question the military utility of the system and can result in program reassessment or requirements reevaluation. Expressed using:  

• Threshold (minimum acceptable performance) 
• Objective (desired performance goal) 

An important, but not mission-critical, performance requirement that supports achievement of system objectives. Not considered critical enough to be designated as a Key Performance Parameter (KPP). 

An important, non-critical requirement supporting mission success. It is tracked but less prioritized than KPPs.

Mission thread with a kinetic outcome. Dynamic targeting procedures, often referred to as find, fix, target, track, engage, assess (F2T2EA) by air and maritime component forces; decide, detect, deliver, and assess methodology by land component forces.

Source: Joint Publication 3-09

Estimate of the total cost of a system from development to disposal, including operation and sustainment. It assesses affordability.

The term LCMP is used primarily within the Department of the Air Force. It serves as the program's integrated acquisition and sustainment strategy and fulfills requirements typically addressed through acquisition planning, acquisition strategy, and sustainment planning documentation.  

Testing to evaluate a system’s survivability and lethality in combat-like conditions. It is required for major systems.

A source selection process in which award is made to the offeror proposing the lowest evaluated price among proposals that meet or exceed all minimum technical and performance requirements. LPTA does not permit tradeoffs between price and technical merit and is generally reserved for well-defined, low-risk acquisitions where exceeding minimum requirements provides little additional value.  

Congress and DoW have significantly narrowed the use of LPTA in recent years. 

Limited production to validate manufacturing and operational suitability before full production. It bridges development and production.

Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) §2464 states that it is “essential for the national defense that the Department of Defense maintain a core logistics capability that is government-owned and government-operated [GOGO] ... to ensure a ready and controlled source of technical competence and resources necessary to ensure effective and timely response to a mobilization, national defense contingency situations, and other emergency requirements.” Accordingly, each military service owns and operates industrial facilities that manufacture, maintain, repair, and
overhaul military weapons and equipment. These GOGO facilities, together with certain government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities are collectively referred to as the organic industrial base, or OIB.

Included in the OIB are several large-scale maintenance facilities (otherwise named depots, shipyards, production plants, logistics complexes, or readiness centers) owned by each service that are dedicated to performing depot-level maintenance and repair (collectively the “maintenance
depots”). In addition, the Air Force and Navy utilize several “centers” that perform weapon systems support in the forms of research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E), acquisition, and sustainment activities including depot-level maintenance and repair. This InFocus pertains to those
selected large-scale maintenance facilities that maintain, repair, or overhaul end items (See GAO-17-82R).

An AAF pathway for acquiring complex systems with structured milestones. 

MDAPs are defined per Section 4201 of Title 10, U.S.C. as acquisition programs whose dollar value for all increments of the program: estimated by the DAE to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, and test and evaluation of more than $525 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 constant dollars or, for procurement, of more than $3.065 billion in FY 2020 constant dollars or if the MDA designation as special interest.

MDAPs are also known as Acquisition Category (ACAT) I programs with designators based on the Milestone Decision Authority:

• ACAT ID: DAE
• ACAT IB: SAE
• ACAT IC: Head of the DoD Component or, if delegated, the CAE

Exempt: Programs using the Middle Tier of Acquisition, Defense Business Syste, or Software Acquisition Pathway shall not be MDAPs regardless of dollar value or special interest. (Section 4201 of Title 10, U.S.C.)

FYDP outputs are currently grouped under 12 Major Force Programs (MFPs). An MFP is an aggregation of the resources (TOA, Manpower, and Forces) necessary to achieve DOD’s objective or plans. Currently, six of the MFPs are considered combat force programs and six are considered support programs.

• MFP 01* -Strategic Forces
• MFP 02* -General Purpose Forces
• MFP 03* -Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, and Space
• MFP 04* -Mobility Forces
• MFP 05* -Guard and Reserve Forces
• MFP 06 - Research and Development
• MFP 07 - Central Supply and Maintenance
• MFP 08 - Training, Medical, &Other Personnel Activities
• MFP 09 - Administration and Associated Activities
• MFP 10 - Support of Other Nations
• MFP 11* -Special Operations Forces
• MFP 12 - National Security Space
  *Combat force programs

A 1-10 scale assessing manufacturing maturity and risk, used alongside Technology Readiness Level (TRL) at milestone reviews.

Gathering data on commercial products and industry capabilities to shape acquisition strategies. It aligns with market trends.

An AAF pathway for rapid prototyping or fielding within 2–5 years. It prioritizes speed for urgent needs.
DoDI 5000.80

Designated individual with overall responsibility for a program. The MDA will have the authority to approve entry of an acquisition program into the next phase of the acquisition process and will be a accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to higher authority, including Congressional reporting.

A formal evaluation at key program stages to assess readiness to proceed. It ensures alignment with goals.

1. Brief summary report.—Not later than 15 days after granting Milestone A approval for a major defense acquisition program, the milestone decision authority for the program shall provide to the congressional defense committees and, in the case of intelligence or intelligence-related activities, the congressional intelligence committees a brief summary report that contains the following elements:
   1. the program cost and fielding targets established under section 2448a(a) of this title.
   2. The estimated cost and schedule for the program established by the military department concerned, including—
      1. the dollar values estimated for the program acquisition unit cost and total life-cycle cost; and
      2. the planned dates for each program milestone and initial operational capability.
   3. The independent estimated cost for the program established pursuant to section 2334(a)(6) of this title, and any independent estimated schedule for the program, including—
      1. as assessment of the major contributors to the program acquisition unit cost and total life-cycle cost; and
      2. the planned dates for each program milestone and initial operational capability.
   4. A summary of the technical or manufacturing risks associated with the program, as determined by the military department concerned, including identification of any critical technologies or manufacturing processes that need to be matured.
   5. A summary of the independent technical risk assessment conducted or approved under section 2448b of this title, including identification of any critical technologies or manufacturing processes that need to be matured 
   6. A summary of any sufficiency review conducted by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation of the analysis of alternatives performed for the program (as referred to in subsection (b)(6)).
   7. Any other information the milestone decision authority considers relevant.

Source: 10 USC 2366a

Source: 10 USC 2366b

Military Capability Gap. Needs or capability gaps in meeting national defense strategies that are generated by the user or user-representative to address mission area deficiencies, evolving threats, emerging technologies, or weapon system cost improvements. For the purposes of prototyping and rapid fielding, military capability gaps include both formal requirements listed in approved JCIDS documents as well as other needs identified through the CCMD IPL accepted into the Chairman’s Capability Gap Assessment process, critical intelligence parameter breaches, and emerging needs identified through formal threat, intelligence, and risk assessments.

An early version of the software to deliver or field basic capabilities to users to evaluate and provide feedback on. Insights from MVPs help shape scope, requirements, and design.

A key event in the Software Pathway. The MVCR delivers initial warfighting capabilities to enhance mission outcomes. The MVCR for applications programs must be deployed to an operational environment within 1 year after the date on which funds are first obligated to acquire or develop new software capability including appropriate operational test.

The MVCR is analogous to a minimum marketable product in commercial industry. 

The essential task or tasks, together with the purpose, that clearly indicates the action to be taken and the reason for the action. (JP 3-0). 

An interdisciplinary, data-driven process that analyzes, designs, and integrates operational needs and capabilities in an end-to-end mission context to assess mission effectiveness, identify capability gaps, and inform requirements, acquisition, modernization, and investment decisions.  

DoD Mission Engineering Guide October 1, 2023 

A sequence of end-to-end mission tasks, activities, and events presented as a series of steps to achieve a mission.  

The use of models and simulations to represent and analyze systems, processes, environments, or operations to support engineering, acquisition, testing, training, operational planning, and decision making throughout a capability's lifecycle.  M&S is a foundational element of Digital Engineering (DE) and is increasingly used across the acquisition lifecycle to support faster, more informed, and data-driven decisions. 

An acquisition strategy that delivers a system or capability through a series of interoperable increments acquired, tested, and deployed separately to reduce risk, accelerate delivery, and accommodate evolving requirements and technology. For major information technology systems, modular contracting is encouraged by 41 U.S.C. § 2308 and implemented through FAR 39.103.  

Use modular contracting when a capability can be delivered incrementally with meaningful value at each step; avoid it when the system's technical, operational, or integration dependencies make incremental delivery impractical.

An integrated business and technical strategy that uses modular architectures, open interfaces, standards-based designs, and competitive acquisition practices to enable affordable modernization, interoperability, technology refresh, and sustainment throughout a system's lifecycle. MOSA is a statutory requirement and a major acquisition priority for the DoW. 

Procurement of a particular end item or system under a multiyear contract approved by specific provision of law. For the Department of
Defense, multiyear procurement contracting of military hardware or systems must generally be specifically, and individually, approved by the Congress (see 10 U.S.C. 2306b(1).

The NDAA establishes policy and authorizes appropriations for the DOD, nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy, DOD elements of the Intelligence Community, and defense-related activities at other federal agencies. The NDAA has generally been consistent in form and organization over time. Typically, there is a House legislative vehicle (e.g., H.R. 6395) as well as a separate Senate vehicle (e.g., S. 4049), though sometimes the Senate committee alternative is proposed as an amendment to the House bill. The bills typically include four divisions related to defense authorizations:

• Division A. Department of Defense Authorizations;
• Division B. Military Construction Authorizations;
• Division C. Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations; and
• Division D. Funding Tables.

CRS Defense Primer: Navigating the NDAA

The “Homeland” and “Western Hemisphere” are priority. The threats are China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The strategic approach entails four “Lines of Effort”: 

• Line of Effort 1: Defend the U.S. Homeland 

• Line of Effort 2: Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation 

• Line of Effort 3: Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners 

• Line of Effort 4: Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base 

2026 National Defense Strategy

DoD IT that meets required information needs, information timeliness requirements, has a cybersecurity accreditation, and meets the attributes required to support military operations, to be entered and managed on the network, and to effectively exchange information for both the technical exchange of information and the operational effectiveness of that exchange. DoD IT that is net ready enables warfighters and DoD business operators to exercise control over enterprise information and services through a loosely coupled, distributed infrastructure that leverages service modularity, multimedia connectivity, metadata, and collaboration to provide an environment that promotes unifying actions among all participants. Net readiness requires that IT operate in an environment where there exists a distributed information processing environment in which applications are integrated; applications and data independent of hardware are integrated; information transfer capabilities exist to ensure communications within and across diverse media; information is in a common format with a common meaning; common human computer interfaces for users and effective means to protect the information exist. Net readiness is critical to achieving the envisioned objective of a cost-effective integrated environment. Achieving and maintaining this vision requires interoperability:

• Within a joint task force or CCMD area of responsibility (AOR). 
• Across CCMD AOR boundaries.
• Between strategic and tactical systems.
• Within and across Military Services and agencies.
• From the battlefield to the sustaining base.
• Among U.S., allied, and coalition forces.
• Across current and future systems.

The NR KPP, NR KSA, and NR APA assesses information requirements, information timeliness, and net ready attributes required for both the technical exchange of information and the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that exchange. The NR KPP, NR KSA, and NR APA consists of measurable and testable performance measures and associated metrics required to evaluate the timely, accurate, and complete exchange and use of information to satisfy information needs for a given system.

The National Military Strategy (NMS) provides the Joint Force a framework for protecting and advancing U.S. national interests. Pursuant to statute, it reflects a comprehensive review conducted by the Chairman with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the unified combatant commanders. The NMS provides the Chairman’s military advice for how the Joint Force implements the defense objectives in the NDS and the direction from the President and the Secretary of Defense. 

National Military Strategy

The persons and organizations that are engaged in research, development, production, integration, services, or information technology activities conducted within the United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The NTIB is intended to strengthen defense innovation, industrial capacity, supply chain resilience, and military readiness across these partner nations.

Source: 10 USC Subtitle A, Part V, Subpart I

National Security Innovation Capital (NSIC) is a new DoD initiative that enables dual-use hardware startups to advance key milestones in their product development by addressing the shortfall of private investment from trusted sources. NSIC awards Other Transaction (OT) agreements to accelerate your productization efforts. NSIC reports to DIU leadership and operates distinctly from its sister organization, National Security Innovation Network, and core DIU. NSIC is focused specifically on hardware technologies in the early stages of development or pre-production (e.g. TRL 3 or higher). If your startup is incorporated in the United States, and you’re developing hardware products, you may apply for NSIC funding. Startups incorporated in an allied country that have operations in the United States where work can be performed will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

https://www.nsic.mil/

Commercial Acceleration Opportunity (CAO) for NSIC

The President's overarching national security document that establishes U.S. national security interests, strategic objectives, and priorities, providing direction for the use of all instruments of national power and guiding defense, foreign policy, and acquisition decisions across the federal government. The NSS is issued by the President of the United States, typically with support from the National Security Council (NSC), and is transmitted to Congress pursuant to statutory requirements. 

2025 National Security Strategy

A program, project, or activity that Congress has not previously funded. Continuing resolutions generally prohibit new starts, which delays programs scheduled to begin in the new fiscal year.

NACAs are completed by the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, as the Air Force independent cost organization, and include analysis of program cost/price, schedule, and technical risk.

NACAs are primarily designed to support the requirements, programming, planning, and budget processes, acquisition milestone/event decisions/reviews, and Sustainment/Post-Initial Operating Capability (IOC) reviews. NACAs can range from a simple sufficiency review of an existing estimate to a complete ICE. SAF/FM, in coordination with SAF/AQ, is responsible for approving the selection of ACAT II/III programs that require a NACA. The selection of these programs is often informed by feedback and/or requests from AF panels, Program Offices, or other interested parties.

 AFCAA will update NACAs annually for all ACAT I programs and select ACAT II/III programs (T-0). NACAs serve as the component cost estimate as required in the DoDI 5000.02.

AFI 65-508

Changes to doctrine, organization, training, (fielded) materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and/or policy, 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 new materiel capability solutions. (DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, JP 4-0)  

An entity that is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by DoD for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the DoD that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section (see 10 U.S.C. 2302(9)).

Source: DoD OT Guide

A statutory cost growth threshold breach that occurs when an MDAP's Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) exceeds limits established by Title 10, triggering congressional notification and, for critical breaches, mandatory program reassessment and potential termination. 

Testing to assess a system’s effectiveness in realistic operational conditions. It ensures fielding readiness.

A program or a project with the potential to mitigate risk, develop a new capability solution, or improve an existing solution to satisfy a capability requirement. 

An independent government test organization responsible for conducting operational test and evaluation of systems and capabilities under realistic conditions to assess operational effectiveness, suitability, and readiness for fielding and use. Examples include: 

• Army Operational Test Command (AOTC) 

• Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) 

• Operational Test and Evaluation Force (OPTEVFOR) for the Navy 

• Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA) 

• Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC), which serves as the OTA for certain DoD IT programs and agencies. 

Operation and Maintenance (O&M) appropriations are used to finance “expenses” not related to military personnel or Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) efforts. Types of expenses funded by O&M appropriations generally include: DoD civilian salaries, supplies and materials, maintenance of equipment, certain equipment items, real property maintenance, rental of equipment and facilities, food, clothing, and fuel.

Operations and Maintenance Overview FY22 Budget Request

The acquisition lifecycle phase in which a fielded system is operated, maintained, supported, and modernized to achieve required readiness, performance, and affordability objectives until retirement or disposal. For many systems, O&S costs represent the largest share of total lifecycle cost, often exceeding development and procurement costs. 

The O&S Phase is a formal phase within the Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) pathway and follows the Production and Deployment (P&D) phase. 

Authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Military Departments by Section 2371 of Title 10, U.S.C. to enter into agreements other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants to conduct basic, applied, and advanced research projects, to include prototyping, in accordance with Section 2371b of Title 10, U.S.C.

See the Prototype OT page for more information.

See the OT Consortia page for listing of the current consortia.

The authority and responsibility to define, manage, and control a system's technical requirements, architecture, design, interfaces, and configuration throughout its lifecycle, including approval of technical changes and evolution of the capability. 

A contract, agreement, or memorandum of understanding with a non-profit partnership intermediary to engage academia and industry on behalf of the government to accelerate tech transfer and licensing.

A Partnership Intermediary means an agency of a state or local gov, or a nonprofit entity owned in whole or in part by, chartered by, funded in whole or in part by, or operated in whole or in part by or on behalf of a State or local Government, that assists, counsels, advises, evaluates, or otherwise cooperates with small business firms and institutions of higher education that need or can make demonstrably productive use of technology-related assistance from a federal laboratory.

A sustainment strategy paying contractors for system performance outcomes. It aligns incentives with needs.

A performance attribute of a particular system considered critical or essential to the development of an effective military capability.

A formal examination of the “as-built” configuration of the system or a configuration item against its technical documentation to establish or verify its product baseline. The objective of the PCA is to resolve any discrepancies between the production-representative item that has successfully passed Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) and the associated documentation currently under configuration control. A successful PCA provides the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) with evidence that the product design is stable, the capability meets end-user needs and production risks are acceptably low. At the conclusion of the PCA, the final product baseline is established and all subsequent changes are processed by formal engineering change action. Further information can be found in MIL-HDBK-61 (Configuration Management Guidance).

See PCA in MCA for more info.

A DoD process linking strategy to funding for programs. It secures acquisition budgets.

See PPBE page

A senior acquisition official accountable for delivering capability across a portfolio of related programs rather than a single program. PAEs replace most Program Executive Officer (PEO) structures under the 2025 acquisition transformation and can shift resources among programs within the portfolio. 

See PAE Page.

The coordinated management of a group of related capabilities, programs, projects, and investments to achieve strategic objectives, optimize resource allocation, balance risk, and maximize mission value. Within the DoW, portfolio management helps senior leaders, including Portfolio Acquisition Executives (PAEs), align acquisition investments and resources to deliver capabilities across mission areas and capability portfolios.

The Preliminary Design Review (PDR) should provide sufficient confidence to proceed with detailed design. The PDR ensures the preliminary design and basic system architecture are complete, that there is technical confidence the capability need can be satisfied within cost and schedule goals and that risks have been identified and mitigation plans established. It also provides the acquisition community, end user and other stakeholders with an opportunity to understand the trade studies conducted during the preliminary design, and thus confirm that design decisions are consistent with the user’s performance and schedule needs and the validated Capability Development Document (CDD). The PDR also establishes the allocated baseline.

See PDR in MCA for more info.

The DoD procurement appropriations title provides funds for non-construction related investment costs—the costs to acquire capital assets, such as an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft or a Virginia class submarine. (Investment costs are distinguished from expenses—the costs of resources consumed in operating the department, such as food and fuel.) DOD uses procurement
appropriations to obtain various categories of materiel, including

• new military hardware (e.g., aircraft, ships, armored vehicles, radios, and satellites);
• upgrades to existing equipment, including service life extension or remanufacturing programs;
• weapons and ammunition (e.g., air-to-air missiles and rifle rounds); and
• spares and repair parts.

Procurement funding provided to the department in a given fiscal year can usually be obligated over a period of three years.

CRS Defense Primer: Procurement

Procurement for Experimental Purposes authorizes the government to acquire quantities necessary for experimentation, technical evaluation, assessment of operational utility, or to maintain a residual operational capability. This authority currently allows for acquisitions in the following nine areas:

Procurement for Experimental Purposes can be competitive or non-competitive and awarded using a contract or agreement. FAR and DFARS are not applicable; therefore, formal competitive procedures do not apply and any resultant contract is not required to include standard provisions and clauses required by procurement laws. Instead, a contract could be written using commercial terms.  Another option is to use an Other Transaction-like agreement, similar to the agreements written under the authority of 10 U.S.C. §4021 or 10 U.S.C. §4022.

Source: Contracting Cone

The individual designated by the PM to lead the development, implementation, and management of the program's product support and sustainment strategy across the system lifecycle. The PSM role is established in Title 10 lifecycle management and product support statutes and implemented through DoDI 5000.91, Product Support Management for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework. The PSM serves as the accountable official for developing and executing product support strategies that sustain weapon system readiness. 

A program's overarching approach for delivering and managing sustainment and product support throughout the system lifecycle to achieve required readiness, availability, reliability, and affordability outcomes. The PSS begins early in the acquisition process, prior to program initiation, and is refined throughout the entire lifecycle. The PSS is not unique to a single acquisition pathway. The PM is responsible for the PSS, with significant support from the Product Support Manager (PSM) and the logistics/product support team. 

A phase of the Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) pathway during which a system is produced, tested, fielded, and deployed to operational users, culminating in full-rate production and operational capability. P&D is not a universal acquisition phase across all AAF pathways. 

The Production Readiness Review (PRR) for the system determines whether the system design is ready for production, and whether the developer has accomplished adequate production planning for entering Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full-Rate Production (FRP). Production readiness increases over time with incremental assessments accomplished at various points in the life cycle of a program.

See PRR in MCA for more info. 

Project Convergence is what the Army calls a “campaign of learning,” designed to further integrate the Army into the Joint Force. It is how the Army intends to play a role in Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2), the DoD's plan to connect sensors and weapon systems from all the military services—Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force—as well as Special Operations Forces (SOF), into a single network which, theoretically, could prove faster and more effective in responding to threats from peer competitors.
Designed around five core elements—soldiers, weapons systems, command and control, information, and terrain— Army Futures Command (AFC) plans to run Project Convergence on an annual basis. The Army intends to conduct experiments with technology, equipment, and solicit soldier feedback throughout the year, culminating in an annual exercise or demonstration. In basic terms, the
Army reportedly wants to “take the service’s big ideas for future warfare and test them in the real world. The Army wants to figure out what works and what needs fixing—and figure that out as early as possible, when it’s much cheaperto make changes.”

Source: CRS

Project Linchpin has been described by Army officials as the Army's first AI-focused Program of Record, providing the infrastructure, standards, governance, and MLOps environment needed to develop, validate, deploy, and sustain trusted artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities across Army systems.

Project Linchpin is actively supporting integration of AI into modernization efforts such as TITAN (Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node).

A U.S. Army initiative that incentivizes prime contractors to incorporate technologies developed through Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and related innovation programs into acquisition proposals, with the goal of accelerating technology transition and fielding. Based on the most recent publicly available information, Project VISTA appears to still be active. Project Vista is NOT a Program of Record but a source-selection incentive framework.

A measure of the average acquisition cost per fully configured end item, calculated by dividing the total program acquisition cost, including development, procurement, and system-specific military construction costs, by the total number of end items to be produced. PAUC is a key affordability and oversight metric used for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs), Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs), Unit Cost Reporting (UCR), and Nunn-McCurdy cost breach assessments.

Each DOD component submitting data to the FYDP assigns resources to an MFP using a unique program element code or PE. The 12 MFPs include thousands of PEs. Each PE is a unique alphanumeric code that identifies functional or organizational entities and their related resources. PEs may have a narrow focus(such as Navy F/A-18 squadrons) or broad focus (such as Air Force long-range strategic planning). PEs enable a user to identify allocations such as the total resources assigned to a program, the weapon systems and support systems within a program, specified  resources in logical groupings, or selected functional groupings of resources.

The official who manages a group of related acquisition programs and reports to the Component Acquisition Executive. DoW is realigning many PEOs into PAEs; this entry remains for legacy documents and unconverted organizations.

The designated official responsible for the overall management and execution of an acquisition program throughout its lifecycle, including requirements execution, cost, schedule, performance, risk, contracting, testing, fielding, and sustainment.

The government and supporting contractor team led by the Program Manager that is responsible for the acquisition, development, fielding, sustainment, and oversight of a program throughout its lifecycle. Note: The PM is the accountable leader; the PMO is the organization that executes and manages the work.

The POM captures the answer to "What are we willing to fund, defer, reduce, or cancel in order to execute our strategy?" It reflects a Component’s proposed multi-year allocation of resources across programs and missions that translates strategy and capability requirements into prioritized investments within the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). It serves as the bridge between requirements and budgeting.

A lifecycle cost estimate developed by the acquisition program office that projects the total cost of a program. For hardware programs, the estimate typically includes development, production, procurement, and sustainment costs; for software programs, it typically includes iterative development, testing, deployment, cybersecurity, cloud services, DevSecOps infrastructure, and ongoing software maintenance and enhancement. A rule of thumb is that hardware programs often buy a product; software programs often fund a continuous capability.

An officially approved program with validated requirements, established funding, and defined cost, schedule, and performance objectives.

A security-focused management document that identifies and manages risks to critical information, technologies, components, software, and mission-critical functions throughout the acquisition lifecycle, and defines the measures used to protect them from compromise, exploitation, or loss. The PM owns the PPP; the security, engineering, and cybersecurity communities build and maintain it.

A physical, digital, conceptual, or analytical model developed to evaluate the feasibility, performance, or suitability of a concept, technology, system, or capability and to inform acquisition decisions. 

A Government-developed plan that defines the methods and criteria used to monitor, assess, and document contractor performance against contract requirements and performance standards. The contractor performs the work; the Government develops the QASP to measure whether the work meets contract requirements. The Contracting Officer approves the QASP and a COR typically executes the surveillance activities described within.

Established in 2021 under then-USD(R&E) Heidi Shyu, RDER aimed to shave 2-4 years off capability delivery by using agile development methods to move prototypes to validated military capabilities. In July 2025 the DoD announced it will terminate RDER funding in FY26, streamlining defense innovation and shifting key elements to the military services.

A recommendation set forth by the FCB with the intent of avoidance, reduction, transfer, or acceptance of the risk(s) associated with a Joint Force gap within the relevant portfolio. RAs may include the establishment of new programs or projects; changes to existing on-going efforts; or doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy change recommendations for Joint Requirements Oversight Council review and endorsement. 

A congressional budget process that passes spending legislation with a simple Senate majority. The 2025 reconciliation act provided approximately $150B in defense funding.

An ongoing initiative led by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to rapidly acquire and field large numbers of autonomous and attritable systems, as well as counter-drone capabilities, through accelerated acquisition and commercial technology integration. Replicator is active and transitioning from initial fielding of autonomous systems (Replicator 1) toward expanded deployment and counter-drone capabilities under Replicator 2.

Utilization of funds in an appropriation account for purposes other than those contemplated at the time of appropriation. Reprogramming is generally accomplished pursuant to consultation with and approval by appropriate congressional committees.

A document to collect industry input on capabilities or costs. It informs acquisition planning.

A solicitation inviting vendor bids for specific requirements. It includes evaluation criteria.

The organization submitting a requirements document. 

Funding for technology development, testing, and evaluation. It supports system maturation.

See PPBE page

Identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks to program success. It addresses cost, schedule, and technical issues.

The Risk Management Framework provides a process that integrates security, privacy, and cyber supply chain risk management activities into the system development life cycle. The risk-based approach to control selection and specification considers effectiveness, efficiency, and constraints due to applicable laws, directives, Executive Orders, policies, standards, or regulations. Managing organizational risk is paramount to effective information security and privacy programs; the RMF approach can be applied to new and legacy systems, any type of system or technology (e.g., IoT, control systems), and within any type of organization regardless of size or sector.

See the RMF page for more information.

A high level, value driven plan that outlines the capabilities, milestones, and outcomes to be delivered over time and demonstrates how they align with strategic objectives through iterative development and continuous improvement. In acquisition, a roadmap helps decision makers understand what capabilities will be delivered, when they are expected, and how they contribute to long term mission and modernization goals.

Work that derives from, extends, or completes a prior Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) effort, funded outside the SBIR budget. Agencies may award Phase III sole source with no further competition.

Research and development activities that generate knowledge and mature technologies to support future defense capabilities, reduce acquisition risk, and enable the transition of innovative solutions into operational use.

A report submitted to Congress that provides the current cost, schedule, performance, and lifecycle cost status of a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) or other designated acquisition program. SARs support congressional oversight and program accountability. Historically, SARs were the primary statutory reporting vehicle for MDAPs. In recent years, the Department has transitioned toward the Modernized SAR (MSAR) process, although "SAR" remains a widely recognized acquisition term.

 An automatic, across-the-board budget reduction applied to federal programs, including DoD programs, when required by law to enforce established spending limits. It can reduce funding for acquisition, operations, and other defense activities.

A senior official overseeing acquisition within a military service. They report to their Service Secretary and in some ways to the DAE.

The official lifecycle cost estimate developed and approved by a Military Department (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.) to represent the Service's funding position for an acquisition program. The SCP projects program costs by appropriation and fiscal year and is used to support budgeting, affordability assessments, and acquisition decision-making.

An analysis to identify and manage cost-saving opportunities by challenging assumptions. It drives efficiency.

Streamlined methods for low-value purchases. They reduce administrative burden.

The dollar amount below which federal agencies may use streamlined acquisition procedures under FAR Part 13 to reduce administrative costs and expedite contracting. As of October 1, 2025, the general SAT is $350,000.

A business concern that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field, and meets the size standards established by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).

Small Business Concern: is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR Part 121.

A company generally must:

• Be independently owned and operated.
• Be not dominant in its field of operation on a national basis.
• Meet the applicable SBA size standard for its industry.
• Include the size and status of any affiliates when determining eligibility.

SBIR is a competitive program that encourages small businesses to engage in Federal R&D with the potential for commercialization to stimulate innovation. STTR is a related program to facilitate cooperative R&D between small business concerns and non-profit U.S. research institutions with the potential for commercialization of innovative technological solutions.

See SBIR/STTR for additional details.

A program under which a portion of a Federal agency’s extramural research or research and development effort is reserved for award to small business concerns for cooperative research and development through a uniform process having

See SBIR/STTR for additional details.

An acquisition method designed to facilitate rapid, iterative delivery of secure, software intensive capabilities to meet operational needs while balancing speed with rigor. The SWP was established under DoD Instruction 5000.87 and authorized by Section 800 of the FY20 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It is one of six pathways in the Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF) and is intended for software intensive systems, components, subsystems, and defense business systems. Its goal is to accelerate capability delivery to the warfighter by integrating modern software development practices such as Agile, Lean, and DevSecOps.

A formal inventory of the components and dependencies in a software product. DoW increasingly requires SBOMs to support supply chain risk management.

 An integrated environment of people, processes, tools, and infrastructure that uses Agile and DevSecOps practices to rapidly develop, secure, test, deploy, and sustain software capabilities.

Evaluating vendor proposals to select the best offer based on criteria. It ensures fairness and value.

A document outlining program goals, allowing contractor flexibility in solutions. It supports performance-based acquisitions.

A document specifying contract tasks, deliverables, and standards. It guides execution and oversight.

The process of identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks within the supply chain to ensure the security, integrity, reliability, and availability of systems, components, software, and services throughout their lifecycle. SCRM is a shared responsibility across acquisition, cybersecurity, engineering, logistics, contracting, and supplier management organizations, with oversight from program leadership.

Activities to maintain a system’s operational capability, including maintenance and upgrades. It ensures readiness.

A structured evaluation of a system's ability to be operated, maintained, and supported throughout its lifecycle while meeting performance, availability, and cost objectives. Responsibility for Sustainability Analysis is typically shared among the Product Support Manager, systems engineers, logisticians, and cost analysts, with oversight from the Program Manager.

The System Functional Review (SFR) is held to evaluate whether the functional baseline satisfies the end-user requirements and capability needs and whether functional requirements and verification methods support achievement of performance requirements. At completion of the SFR, the functional baseline is normally taken under configuration control.

See SFR in MCA for more info. 

The System Verification Review (SVR) is the technical assessment point at which the actual system performance is verified to meet the requirements in the system performance specification and is documented in the functional baseline. The Functional Configuration Audit (FCA) is the technical audit during which the actual performance of a system element is verified and documented to meet the requirements in the system element performance specification in the allocated baseline. Further information on FCA can be found in MIL-HDBK-61 (Configuration Management Guidance). SVR and FCA are sometimes used synonymously when the FCA is at the system level. The SVR/FCA typically occurs during the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase.

See SVR in MCA for more info. 

The System Requirements Review (SRR) is a multi-disciplined technical review to ensure that the developer understands the system requirements and is ready to proceed with the initial system design. This review assesses whether the system requirements as captured in the system performance specification (sometimes referred to as the System Requirements Document (SRD)):

• Are consistent with the preferred materiel solution (including its support concept) from the Materiel Solution Analysis (MSA) phase.
• Are consistent with technology maturation plans.
• Adequately consider the maturity of interdependent systems.

See SRR in MCA for more info. 

The SEP provides the technical strategy for planning, managing, and executing systems engineering activities throughout the acquisition lifecycle, supporting requirements management, design, integration, testing, risk management, and milestone decisions. The Program Manager is responsible for the Systems Engineering Plan, while the Chief Engineer or Lead Systems Engineer typically develops and maintains its technical content.

A set of interoperable, independently managed systems that work together to deliver capabilities and mission outcomes that cannot be achieved by any single system alone.

Types of Systems of Systems (SoS): Classifications that describe how independent systems are organized, governed, and coordinated to deliver integrated capabilities. The primary types are Directed, Acknowledged, Collaborative, and Virtual systems of systems. For most DoW acquisition and modernization programs, you'll most often encounter Acknowledged SoS, where systems belong to different organizations but must interoperate to achieve mission outcomes.

TIAs are assistance instruments used to stimulate or support research. As discussed in appendix B to this part, a TIA may be either a kind of cooperative agreement or a type of assistance transaction other than a grant or cooperative agreement.

The ultimate goal for using TIAs, like other assistance instruments used in defense research programs, is to foster the best technologies for future defense needs. TIAs differ from and complement other assistance instruments available to agreements officers, in that TIAs address the goal by fostering civil-military integration (see appendix A to this part). TIAs therefore are designed to:

• (a) Reduce barriers to commercial firms' participation in defense research, to give the Department of Defense (DoD) access to the broadest possible technology and industrial base.
• (b) Promote new relationships among performers in both the defense and commercial sectors of that technology and industrial base.
• (c) Stimulate performers to develop, use, and disseminate improved practices.

See 32 USC Part 37

A clearly defined action or activity specifically assigned by an appropriate authority to an individual or organization, or derived during mission analysis, that must be accomplished. (JP 1, Vol 1). 

The license rights the government holds in technical data and computer software, ranging from unlimited to government purpose to limited or restricted. The funding source for development largely determines which category applies.

A phase in the MCA pathway to reduce technical risks and mature technologies before development. It includes prototyping.
DoDI 5000.85

The highest-priority technology capabilities, systems, and initiatives designated for modernization to support mission objectives, improve operational performance, reduce risk, and address evolving operational and security requirements.

DoD's nine levels on maturing technologies, integrating into systems, and operations.

1. Basic principles observed and reported
2. Technology concept and/or application formulated
3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept
4. Component and/or breadboard validation in a laboratory environment
5. Component and/or breadboard validation in a relevant environment
6. System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment
7. System prototype demonstration in an operational environment
8. Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration
9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations

See TRL page for more information.

Processes to assess a system’s performance and suitability. It includes developmental and operational tests.

The TEMP is the document to capture DT, OT, and LFT&E requirements; the rationale for those requirements (e.g., Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System and concept of operations (CONOPS)); and resources, to be approved by the DOT&E and USD(R&E), or their designee, as appropriate. The TEMP, or similar strategic document for programs not under T&E oversight, is approved at the Service level. At a minimum, the document details:

• The resources and test support requirements needed for all test phases.
• Developmental, operational, and live fire test objectives and test metrics.
• Program schedule with T&E events and reporting requirements that incorporate report generation timelines.
• Test phase objectives, including entrance and exit criteria and cybersecurity test objectives.
• Program decisions and data requirements to support those decisions.
• Data collection requirements.
• Funding sources for all test resources.

The PM will use the TEMP, test strategy, or other pathway-appropriate test strategy documentation as the planning and management tool for the integrated T&E program. The test strategy documentation requires DoD Component approval. Documentation for programs under USD(R&E) or DOT&E oversight will require USD(R&E), or their designee, and DOT&E approval respectively. Documentation for programs not under T&E oversight is approved at the Service level.

Source: DODI 5000.89 Section 3

A Test Readiness Review (TRR) provides the formal approval authority with a review showing that the system is ready to enter the test and that the funding and execution of a test executes the test and gathers the required information. TRRs assess test objectives, test methods and procedures, test scope, safety, and whether test resources have been properly identified and coordinated. TRRs are also intended to determine if any changes are required in planning, resources, training, equipment, or timing to successfully proceed with the test. If any of these items are not ready, senior leadership may decide to proceed with the test and accept the risk, or mitigate the risk in some manner. A TRR is conducted for those events identified in the TEMP.

See TRR in MCA for more info. 

The sponsor’s attestation that a capability requirement was informed by authoritative intelligence assessments and data from the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, and that this threat intelligence was aligned with the capability requirement’s expected operational timeframe and conceptual employment. Threat Approval will be accomplished by the sponsoring Service’s Senior Intelligence Center. In the case of “FCB Interest” and above capability requirements, the Defense Intelligence Agency reviews the Service-level Threat Approval.  

Title 10 is the section of the law that covers the military. Part V covers Defense Acquisition. 

As of January 1, 2022, the reorganization of Part V (titled “Acquisition”) of subtitle A of Title 10, U.S.C., is enacted. The new structure makes no substantive changes to Title 10, but improves the readability of the defense acquisition provisions through a new section numbering system and overall reorganization. There are over 200 changes, most of which are a simple renumbering (e.g. Section 2508 “Industrial Base Fund” becomes Section 4817). Some former single sections are reorganized into multiple new sections (e.g. Section 2306 “Kinds of Contracts” becomes Sections 3321-3323). A table listing the changes can be found below, along with the four Title 10 “Rosetta Stone” documents.

All costs of a system, from acquisition to disposal. It evaluates affordability.

Evaluating alternatives balancing cost, performance, and schedule. It supports decision-making.

The Trusted Capital program connects companies critical to the defense industrial base with vetted trusted capital providers.

Companies critical to the Department of Defense (DoD) require access to rapid funding from capital providers at key development stages. Without this funding, capability providers in the DoD supply chain become susceptible to strategic funding from adversaries that leverage capital to exploit technology transfer.

The Trusted Capital Marketplace is a forum to convene trusted sources of private capital with innovative domestic companies. The companies have been down-selected by the military services and operate in emerging technology sectors critical to the U.S. defense industrial base – strengthening domestic manufacturing through, and limiting foreign access to, critical technology. Trusted Capital Marketplace participants include:

• AFWERX
• Army Futures Command
• Defense Innovation Unit
• Joint Artificial Intelligence Center
• NavalX
• U.S. Special Operations Command

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

https://dodtrustedcapital.force.com

Common name for the federal statutory requirements in Title 10, Chapter 271 and Title 41, Chapter 35, enacted September 10, 1962, which require certified cost or pricing data in certain contracting actions and provide remedies for defective pricing.

A contract action that lets work begin before terms, specifications, or price are final. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) caps obligations before definitization and generally requires definitization within 180 days. Not to be confused with Urgent Capability Acquisition.

A list of requirements left out of the President's budget, which each Service chief and combatant commander submits to Congress under 10 U.S.C. 222a.

The use of a unique identifier to distinguish an item, asset, or entity from all others, enabling traceability, accountability, and lifecycle management.

University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) are nonprofit research organizations aligned with the DoW to advance critical technology and engineering capabilities.

See: UARCs

An AAF pathway for rapidly addressing immediate warfighter needs. It prioritizes speed. Capabilities must be delivered within two years. 
DoDI 5000.81

Capability requirements identified as impacting an ongoing or anticipated contingency operation. If left unfulfilled, UONs result in capability gaps potentially resulting in loss of life or critical mission failure. When validated by a single DoD component, these are known as DoD component UONs. DoD components, in their own terminology, may use a different name for a UON.

It is primarily used in the Software Acquisition Pathway.

The Valley of Death is an unofficial term used to describe the low transition rate of research projects, prototypes, or commercial technologies that transition into acquisition programs and fielded solutions. The term has also been used to describe the challenge to go from development to production at scale. Is has also been used for early research that doesn't transition into prototypes or demonstrations. 

See the Valley of Death page for more information. 

The name DoW adopted in November 2025 for what was formerly the Defense Acquisition System. The change accompanies a shift toward portfolio management and speed to fielding.

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 is a U.S. federal law enacted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of acquiring major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) by addressing common issues like cost overruns and schedule delays. It mandates enhanced systems engineering, technology risk management, independent cost estimates, and competitive prototyping before program initiation. For defense acquisition, WSARA promotes disciplined processes, better oversight, and realistic planning to deliver capable weapon systems on time and within budget, enhancing overall program accountability and mission readiness.

A WBS is a structured hierarchy of program deliverables and associated work that breaks a complex initiative into manageable segments, enabling scope definition, resource planning, cost estimation, scheduling, and performance tracking.