IBOLC Class 09-17 Welcome Letter

Click to enlarge.

Read More

Tricare Resources for Service

Click to enlarge.

Read More

Fort Benning Main Post Map

Click to enlarge.

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-28 SERGEANT AND STAFF SERGEANT PROMOTION RECOMMENDED LIST

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6688_AD2017-28_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-28 (Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Promotion
Recommended List)
1. References.
a. Army Directive 2016-19 (Retaining a Quality Noncommissioned Officer Corps),
26 May 2016.
b. Army Regulation (AR) 140-111 (U.S. Army Reserve Reenlistment Program),
9 May 2007, Rapid Action Revision Issued 6 September 2011.
c. AR 350-1 (Army Training and Leader Development), 19 August 2014.
d. AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions), 25 April 2017.
e. AR 601-280 (Army Retention Program), 1 April 2016.
f. AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations),
19 December 2016.
2. This directive revises Army policy for Title 10 enlisted Soldiers in the Regular Army
(RA) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) as specified in paragraph 3, effective the May
2018 promotion month. Because our Army is a Soldier-centric force, we must rely on a
professional noncommissioned officer (NCO) Corps to sustain our stature as the world’s
premier combat force. Leader development is a time-intensive process, but the end
product of that investment is an NCO Corps of competence and character fit to lead in
combat. It is essential that unit leaders—across all levels—understand their individual
role in ensuring that we develop and train our Soldiers and NCOs to assume increasing
levels of responsibility. To this end, we must remain committed to retaining the talented
men and women we have accessed and trained because they are our future.
3. It is imperative that the Army maintain a quality force by keeping Soldiers who are
competent, educated, motivated, and trained to work as members of a team. All
leaders are responsible for training and developing our Soldiers for increased levels of
responsibility by the time a Soldier attains promotion eligibility in the primary zone. My
expectation is that the vast majority of Soldiers will be integrated into the promotion
recommended list upon attainment of such eligibility. By affording quality Soldiers
promotion opportunities and, conversely, denying continued service to those who clearly
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-28 (Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Promotion
Recommended List)
2
do not show they have the potential for such service, we strengthen our Army and NCO
Corps. The following policies align an “up-or-out” system by linking continued
advancement with retention control points. To improve readiness, morale, retention,
and the professional development of our talented Soldiers consistent with sustaining an
All-Volunteer Army, I direct the following policy changes concerning promotion to
sergeant (SGT) and staff sergeant (SSG):
a. Promotion eligibility criteria for recommendation and promotion (RA and USAR)
are in the enclosure, which supersedes AR 600-8-19, tables 3-1 through 3-4.
b. Rules for integration in the promotion recommended list (AR 600-8-19, table 3-1)
are applicable to RA and USAR Active Guard Reserve (AGR) only.
(1) Secondary Zone. Unit commanders will consider eligible Soldiers who are in
the secondary zone for integration into the SGT/SSG recommended list on a monthly
basis. When the unit commander determines a Soldier has the potential for increased
responsibility, the unit commander will recommend the Soldier for promotion and refer
him or her to a local promotion board. Those Soldiers who are approved will be
integrated into the promotion recommended list with all earned promotion points.
(2) Primary Zone. Appearance before a local promotion board is mandatory for
all Soldiers upon initially reaching primary zone eligibility. All Soldiers approved for
promotion list integration will be integrated into the promotion recommended list with all
earned promotion points. A Soldier who is not recommended for integration will be
formally counseled on why he or she was not recommended. Counseling must identify
what Soldiers must do to improve their knowledge, skills, and attributes and to prepare
themselves for increased responsibility. The counseling also must address the
consequences of not being integrated into the promotion recommended list. Those
consequences include a potential bar to continued service (references 1b and 1e)
because the Soldier is noncompetitive for promotion and does not demonstrate
leadership potential. Additionally, retention control points (reference 1a) used to
determine the maximum years of service a Soldier may serve without promotion should
be incorporated into the counseling. Soldiers who respond to training and counseling,
and demonstrate they have the potential for increased responsibilities will be sent to the
promotion board.
(3) Command List Integration. Command list integration is rescinded for RA and
USAR (AGR) Soldiers only and replaced with mandatory list integration. All Soldiers
meeting the eligibility criteria in table 3-1 (at the enclosure) for mandatory list integration
must be integrated into the promotion recommended list. Soldiers integrated into the list
will be credited with all earned promotion points. The ability of local commanders to
deny integration into the promotion recommended list (as was set forth in command list
integration policy) is rescinded. Instead, commanders will use the bar to continued
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-28 (Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Promotion
Recommended List)
3
service (with counseling) to identify those individuals who have no potential for
continued service or leadership. Soldiers who meet time in service (TIS) and time in
grade (TIG) eligibility, but are not otherwise eligible for promotion list integration
because they do not meet other eligibility criteria, will not be integrated into the
promotion recommended list until they overcome the basis for their ineligibility. When
they meet all eligibility criteria, these Soldiers will be integrated into the promotion
recommended list and will compete for promotion with all earned promotion points.
c. Bar to Continued Service (AR 601-280 and AR 140-111). The Deputy Chief of
Staff (DCS), G-1 will impose a Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) bar to
continued service against any Soldier (RA and USAR (AGR) only) who fails to qualify
for mandatory appearance before a promotion board upon attaining primary zone
TIS/TIG eligibility because he or she did not complete mandatory Structured Self-
Development (SSD) courses. The HQDA bar to continued service puts a Soldier on
notice that his or her continued service may not be in the Army’s best interest. Upon
imposition of the HQDA bar to continued service, the company, detachment, or
comparable commander of the unit the Soldier is assigned to or attached for duty and
administration will counsel the Soldier regarding the requirement to qualify for promotion
board appearance by completing SSD courses. The commander will review the bar to
continued service at least every 3 months after the date of imposition and 30 days
before the Soldier’s scheduled departure from the unit or separation from the Service.
Upon completion of each 3-month review, the unit commander will use DA Form 4856
(Developmental Counseling Form) to inform the Soldier that the bar has been reviewed
and will remain in effect unless the Soldier completes the mandatory SSD courses. The
Soldier will be further informed that, upon completion of the fourth 3-month review,
separation proceedings will be initiated unless he or she has qualified for appearance
before a promotion board by completing the mandatory SSD courses. The HQDA bar
to continued service will be removed when the Soldier meets the SSD requirement.
d. Involuntary Separation (AR 635-200). In accordance with paragraph 3c and
chapter 13 of reference 1f, commanders will initiate involuntary separation for any
Soldier (RA and USAR AGR) with an HQDA bar to continued service who, after
12 months (four 3-month reviews) and subsequent attainment of mandatory list
integration TIS/TIG eligibility criteria, still has not qualified himself or herself for
appearance before a promotion board by completing mandatory SSD courses.
Commanders will separate these Soldiers when, in the commander’s judgment, the
Soldier’s potential for advancement or leadership is unlikely.
4. These changes will enhance Army readiness by aligning individual capabilities with
the Army’s needs while optimizing human performance and engagement. The changes
recognize and capitalize on the unique talents every member of the Army team
possesses and employs each member to maximum effect. This talent management
effort goes beyond meeting numbers; it recognizes what it takes to build an Army by
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-28 (Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Promotion
Recommended List)
4
capitalizing on our greatest strength: Soldiers. Upon implementation of this directive,
U.S. Army Human Resources Command will adjust how Soldiers are distributed against
requisitions to coincide with these revised promotion eligibility policies.
5. The DCS, G-1 is the proponent for this policy. The DCS, G-1 will issue an Armywide
message to inform the force of these changes as well as implementing guidance to
support them. The DCS, G-1 will also incorporate the provisions of this directive and
the implementing guidance into references 1b, 1d, and 1e as soon as practical.
6. This directive is rescinded upon publication of the revised references 1b, 1d, and 1e.
Encl Mark T. Esper
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-28 (Sergeant and Staff Sergeant Promotion
Recommended List)
5
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SERGEANT AND STAFF SERGEANT
These tables supersede tables 3-1 through 3-4 in Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted
Promotions and Reductions).
Table 3-1. Eligibility criteria for recommendation (Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve (Active Guard Reserve))
Factor Criteria Waiver
MOS Recommended in CPMOS. Fully qualified in recommended
MOS (DA Pam 611–21).
None
Civilian education High school diploma/general education development (GED). None
Military education To SGT—Completed SSD 1 before board appearance to
SGT.
To SSG—Completed SSD 2 before board appearance to
SSG.
Constructive credit granted by
TRADOC. Equivalency
approval completed before
board appearance for other
service, USAR, or ARNG BLC.
Nonresident courses qualify for
this requirement. No
exceptions authorized.
Time requirement
for board
appearance as of
the 1st day of the
board month
To SGT—
Secondary zone: 17 months TIS, 5 months TIG
Primary zone: 35 months TIS, 11 months TIG
Mandatory list integration: 47 months TIS, 23 months TIG
To SSG—
Secondary zone: 47 months TIS, 6 months TIG
Primary zone: 71 months TIS, 17 months TIG
Mandatory list integration: 83 months TIS, 23 months TIG
None.
Reenlistment
eligibility
Not ineligible to reenlist. Ineligible solely based on DES
processing, remains otherwise
eligible
Physical
qualifications
Remains eligible until determined unfit by the DES process
(refer to para 1–20).
Regains eligibility when the
findings approved by the
SECARMY are “fit” or when
approved for continuation on
active duty under the provisions
of AR 635–40
APFT Possess a current passing record APFT score in accordance
with applicable regulations and field manuals.
As directed by DCS, G–3/5/7
(DAMO–TR), Soldier will use
last APFT qualification when
HQDA suspends conduct of the
APFT (regardless of when it
was last administered). Refer
to paragraph 1–20 for DES.
Weight control In compliance with AR 600–9. None.
ASAP Not command-referred to the program. Self-referral.
Disciplinary Not flagged in accordance with AR 600–8–2. None.
2
Table 3-2. Eligibility criteria for recommendation (U.S. Army Reserve troop program unit, Army Reserve Element,
and multicomponent commands or units)
Factor Criteria Waiver
Membership Member of the USAR. Not an unsatisfactory participant. None.
MOS Recommended in CPMOS. F ully qualified in
recommended MOS (DA Pam 611–21).
Soldier awarded ASI “4A.”
Soldier may be recommended
in SMOS and/or AMOS if fully
qualified in the MOS and
recommended by the CDR.
Civilian education High school diploma, GED, or an associate or higher
degree.
None.
Military education To SGT—Completed SSD 1 before consideration by a SGT
promotion board.
To SSG—Completed SSD 2 before board appearance to
SSG.
Constructive credit granted by
TRADOC. Equivalency
approval completed before
board appearance for other
service, USAR, or ARNG
BLC. Nonresident courses do
qualify for this requirement.
No exceptions authorized.
Time requirement
for promotion
consideration as
of the date the
board convenes
To SGT—
Secondary zone: 17 months TIS, 5 months TIG
Primary zone: 35 months TIS, 11 months TIG
Command list integration: 47 months TIS, 23 months TIG
To SSG—
Secondary zone: 47 months TIS, 6 months TIG
Primary zone: 71 months TIS, 17 months TIG
Command list integration: 83 months TIS, 23 months TIG
Reenlistment
eligibility
Not ineligible to reenlist. Ineligible solely based on
DES processing remains
otherwise eligible.
Retention Does not exceed maximum years of service for current rank
or has not reached age 57.
None.
Physical
qualifications
Remains eligible until determined unfit by the DES process
(refer to paragraph 1–20).
Soldier regains eligibility
when the findings approved
by the SECARMY are “fit” or
when approved for continu-
ation in RC status under the
provisions of AR 635–40.
APFT Possess a current passing record APFT score in
accordance with applicable regulations and field manuals.
As directed by DCS, G-3/5/7
(DAMO–TR), Soldier will use
last APFT qualification when
HQDA suspends conduct of
the APFT (regardless of when
it was last administered).
Refer to paragraph 1–20 for
DES.
Weight control In compliance with AR 600–9. None.
ASAP Not command referred to the program. Self-referral.
Disciplinary Not flagged in accordance with AR 600–8–2. None.
3
Table 3-3. Eligibility criteria for promotion pin-on (Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve (Active Guard Reserve))
Factor Criteria Waiver
MOS Promoted in CPMOS. Fully qualified in MOS to include
meeting all school requirements.
Soldiers awarded ASI “4A.”
Military education BLC graduate for promotion pin-on to SGT. ALC graduation
for promotion pin-on to SSG.
NCOES waivers no longer
authorized. Refer to
paragraph 1–28.
Minimum time
requirement for
promotion pin-on
as of the 1st day of
the promotion
month
To SGT—
Secondary zone: 18 months TIS, 6 months TIG
Primary zone: 36 months TIS, 12 months TIG
Mandatory list integration: 48 months TIS, 24 months TIG
To SSG—
Secondary zone: 48 months TIS, 7 months TIG
Primary zone: 72 months TIS, 18 months TIG
Mandatory list integration: 84 months TIS, 24 months TIG
None.
Reenlistment
eligibility
Eligible to reenlist or extend in accordance with appropriate
regulations.
Ineligible solely based on DES
processing remains otherwise
eligible.
Physical
qualifications
Remains eligible until determined unfit by the DES process
(refer to para 1–20).
a. Soldier regains eligibility
when the findings approved by
the SECARMY are “fit” or when
approved for continuation on
active duty/continuation in RC
status under the provisions of
AR 635–40.
b. When the provisions of
paragraph 1–20 apply.
APFT Possess a current passing record APFT score in
accordance with applicable regulations and field manuals.
As directed by DCS, G–3/5/7
(DAMO–TR), Soldier will use
last APFT qualification when
HQDA suspends conduct of the
APFT (regardless of when it was
last administered).
ASAP Not command referred to the program. Self-referral.
Disciplinary Not flagged in accordance with AR 600–8–2. None.
4
Table 3-4. Eligibility criteria for promotion pin-on (U.S. Army Reserve troop program unit, Army Reserve element,
and multicomponent commands or units)
Factor Criteria Waiver
Military education BLC graduate or promotion pin-on to SGT. ALC graduate
for promotion pin-on to SSG.
NCOES waivers no longer
authorized. Refer to para 1–28.
Minimum time
requirement for
promotion pin-on
as of the 1st day
of the promotion
month
To SGT—
Secondary zone: 18 months TIS, 6 months TIG
Primary zone: 36 months TIS, 12 months TIG
Command list integration: 48 months TIS, 24 months TIG
To SSG—
Secondary zone: 48 months TIS, 7 months TIG
Primary zone: 72 months TIS, 18 months TIG
Command list integration: 84 months TIS, 24 months TIG
Reenlistment
eligibility
Eligible to reenlist or extend in accordance with appropriate
regulations.
Ineligible solely based on DES
processing remain otherwise
eligible.
PPRL Listed on a valid permanent promotion recommended list. None.
Sequence order In the proper sequence order when promoted from the
PPRL.
None.
Physical
qualifications
Remain eligible until determined unfit by the DES process
(refer to para 1–20).
a. Soldiers regain eligibility
when the findings approved by
the SECARMY are “fit” or when
approved for continuation in
RC status under the provisions
of AR 635–40.
b. When the provisions of para
1–20 apply.
APFT Possess a current passing APFT score in accordance
with applicable regulations and field manuals.
As directed by DCS, G–3/5/7
(DAMO–TR), Soldiers will use
last APFT qualification when
conduct of the APFT is
suspended by HQDA
(regardless of when it was last
administered).
ASAP Not command referred to the program. Self-referral.
Disciplinary Cannot be Flagged in accordance with AR 600–8–2. None.
Position
requirement
To SGT/SSG–12 month position obligation. Where the Soldier has a
change of residence or civilian
employment incurs an extreme
hardship requiring such
reassignment, or as otherwise
determined by the first general
officer in the chain of
command. 

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-34 ACQUISITION REFORM INITIATIVE #7: IMPROVING COST ESTIMATION AND RESOURCING

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6465_AD2017-34_Web_Final.pdf

S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-34 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #7: Improving Cost
Estimation and Resourcing)
1. References. A complete list of references is at the enclosure.
2. The purpose of this directive is to improve the cost estimation and resourcing
processes to enable Army senior leaders to make better informed and more timely
decisions. This directive is a continuation of Army Directive 2017-22.
3. I direct the following actions:
a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
(ASA (ALT)) will update Army Regulation (AR) 70-1 (Army Acquisition Policy) to:
(1) develop cost estimates for U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
capability developers to support development of the course of action and Initial
Capabilities Document for the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) and
Milestone Development Decision Army System Acquisition Review Council (ASARC)
decisions. (Target: No later than (NLT) 30 April 2018.)
(2) include that the Deputy ASA (Cost and Economics), on behalf of the ASA
(Financial Management and Comptroller) (FM&C), will develop Independent Cost
Estimates for Milestones A, B, and C, and Full-Rate Production decision reviews for the
Army Acquisition Executive-selected Acquisition Category (ACAT) II and III programs.
The ASA (ALT), ASA (FM&C), and Deputy Chief of Staff (DCS), G-8 can nominate
programs for Independent Cost Estimates. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(3) include program numbers in the Army Acquisition Program Master List to
facilitate linking and aligning programmatic information across financial systems (such
as the Standard Study Number-Line Item Number Automated Management and
Integrating System (SLAMIS), Force Development Investment Information System
(FDIIS), and General Fund Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). (Target: NLT
30 April 2018.)
b. The ASA (FM&C) will update AR 11-18 (The Cost and Economic Analysis
Program) to:
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-34 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #7: Improving Cost
Estimation and Resourcing)
2
(1) validate rough order of magnitude estimates, conducted by the Program
Executive Officer or Program Manager, to support development of the course of action
and the Initial Capability Document for the AROC and Milestone Development Decision
ASARC decisions. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(2) develop Independent Cost Estimates for Army Acquisition Executive-selected
ACAT II and III program Milestone Reviews to ensure that Army senior leaders have
consistent and accurate information to make better resource decisions. The ASA (ALT),
ASA (FM&C), and DCS, G-8 can nominate programs. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(3) include U.S. Army Materiel Command representation at the Army Cost
Review Board to ensure the sustainment perspective is included in the Army Cost
Position. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(4) conduct sensitivity analysis for ACAT I and selected ACAT II and III programs
and brief the Army Cost Position to the AROC and ASARC at Milestones A, B, and C,
and Full-Rate Production to provide funding options so Army senior leaders can make
cost-informed decisions. The ASA (ALT), ASA (FM&C), and DCS, G-8 can nominate
ACAT II and III programs for this process. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(5) change business rules to ensure all program cost estimates are developed
using the Army Procurement Objective, Army Authorization Objective, and Basis of
Issue Plan to produce accurate cost figures. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
c. The ASA (FM&C) will write a legislative change proposal for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 to increase year of execution funding
flexibility to enable timely program adjustments. Solutions include:
(1) increasing dollar limits for below threshold reprogramming actions to
$50 million for both procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation.
(2) allowing the Secretary of the Army to reprogram up to $250 million of
unobligated funds for Rapid Acquisition Authority.
(3) requesting a General Funding Appropriation of $100 million not dedicated to
a specific program. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
d. The DCS, G-3/5/7, in coordination with the ASA (ALT), will update AR 700-142
(Type Classification, Materiel Release, Fielding, and Transfer) to validate the Program
Manager’s Materiel Fielding Plan to ensure it is in accordance with the operational
priorities of the Dynamic Army Resourcing Priority List; the Army Resourcing Priority
List; the Integrated Requirements Priority List; and Headquarters, Department of the
Army execution order to facilitate unit fielding schedule. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-34 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #7: Improving Cost
Estimation and Resourcing)
3
e. The DCS, G-8, in coordination with the ASA (FM&C), will update AR 1-1
(Planning, Programming, and Budget Execution) to, based on an agreed upon solution,
map and integrate program numbers or other unique identifiers into financial systems
(such as SLAMIS, FDIIS, and GFEBS) to ease the execution and audit trail of data
calls, and will identify associated costs. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
f. The DCS, G-8 will update AR 71-9 (Warfighting Capabilities Determination), in
coordination with Training and Doctrine Command, to publish a Modernization Strategy
update, as needed but at least every 2 years, that contains the authoritative list of
investment priorities informed by The Army Plan. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
g. The DCS, G-8 will assess and review the feasibility of using the Army Financial
Benefits Reporting and Tracking process to provide visibility and track financial benefits
(cost savings, cost avoidance, and revenue generation. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018).
4. The policies in this directive apply to the Active Army, Army National Guard/Army
National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
5. This directive is rescinded upon publication of these policy changes in AR 1-1,
AR 11-18, AR 70-1, AR 71-9, and AR 700-142.
Encl Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-34 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #7: Improving Cost
Estimation and Resourcing)
4
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
REFERENCES
a. Section 1735, Title 10, United States Code, The Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1990.
b. Section 1741, Title 10, United States Code, Policies and Programs: Establishment
and Implementation.
c. Section 3016b(5)(A), Title 10, United States Code, Assistant Secretaries of the
Army.
d. Section 1122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law
114-328.
e. Section 808, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law
114-92, Volume 129 Statute at Large, p. 888–889.
f. Chief of Staff of the Army, Report to Congress on Linking and Streamlining Army
Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes in Response to National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, Section 808 (May 2016).
g. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System),
May 12, 2003, Certified Current as of November 20, 2007.
h. DoD Instruction 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System), January 7,
2015; Incorporating Change 1, Effective January 26, 2017 and Change 2, Effective
February 2, 2017.
i. DoD 7000.14-R (Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation),
Volume 4 (Accounting Policy), January 2016.
j. Headquarters, Department of the Army (DA) General Orders No. 2017-01
(Assignment of Functions and Responsibilities Within Headquarters, Department of the
Army), 5 January 2017.
k. Army Directive 2017-22 (Implementation of Acquisition Reform Initiatives 1 and 2),
12 Sep 2017.
l. Army Regulation (AR) 1-1 (Planning, Programming, and Budget Execution),
23 May 2016.
m. AR 11-18 (The Cost and Economic Analysis Program), 19 August 2014.
n. AR 70-1 (Army Acquisition Policy), 16 June 2017.
2
o. AR 71-9 (Warfighting Capabilities Determination), 28 December 2009.
p. AR 700-142 (Type Classification, Materiel Release, Fielding, and Transfer),
2 June 2015. 

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-32 ACQUISITION REFORM INITIATIVE #6: STREAMLINING THE CONTRACTING PROCESS

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6464_AD2017-32_Web_Final.pdf

S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6: Streamlining the
Contracting Process)
1. References. A complete list of references is at the enclosure.
2. The purpose of this directive is to streamline the contracting process and reduce the
time it takes to develop and award a contract. Contracting timelines for systems
acquisition can take from 1 to 2 years, slowing the acquisition process and delaying the
delivery of capabilities to Soldiers. Our contracting policies and documents must be
well-understood, delayered, and the overall process much faster. This directive is a
continuation of Army Directive 2017-22.
3. I direct the following actions:
a. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (ASA) (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology) will:
(1) centralize policy under the Deputy ASA (Procurement) to standardize
contracting policy across the Army and remove unnecessary or outdated policies that
delay the contracting process. The Office of the Deputy ASA (Procurement) is the only
Army organization delegated authority to issue contracting policy. (Target: Not later
than (NLT) 30 April 2018.)
(2) establish a process that provides visibility for all contracting related audits.
(Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(3) review regulatory thresholds for key contracting approval authorities and
identify opportunities for further delegation than currently authorized to reduce delays in
the procurement process. Incorporate approved changes into the Army Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(4) complete a review of the 350 potential required contract file documents to
identify and reduce contract documentation requirements and identify streamlining
opportunities. The goal is to reduce contract file documents by at least 10 percent.
Incorporate the changes into the AFARS. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(5) review source selection policies, procedures, and training and identify
opportunities for increased standardization, greater sharing of best practices, and
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6: Streamlining the
Contracting Process)
2
training for source selection evaluations, cost and price evaluations, and the conduct of
debriefings. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(6) mandate that all contracting activities use Virtual Contract Enterprise
Paperless Contract File, including the milestone tracking capability, and incorporate this
mandate in the AFARS. Include use of the Paperless Contract Folder as a contracting
metric. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(7) review and standardize peer review policies and procedures to reduce
redundant or advisory-only peer reviews. Incorporate changes into the AFARS to
support efficient execution of reviews and baseline best practices. (Target: NLT
30 April 2018.)
(8) create a new Army regulation for contracting to instruct Army customers
when seeking contracted support. Similar to Army Regulation 70-13 (Management and
Oversight of Service Acquisitions), the new regulation will set forth the roles and
responsibilities of customers, establish standard elements for a “contract requirements
package,” and provide information on engagement with contracting offices and
oversight of contractors throughout the procurement process. It will identify the
minimum standards necessary to execute a contract action for the requirement and will
serve as the foundation for training requiring activities. (Target: NLT 30 September
2018.)
(9) assess current training requirements for the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act and the most recent skill gap analysis. Identify hiring opportunities to
improve the selection of people with appropriate skills (including but not limited to
writing, analytical, and math skills) for contracting positions and additional training to
support career development. (Target: NLT 30 January 2018.)
(10) direct Heads of Contracting Activities to examine their internal
organizational structures and develop plans for the optimization of mission, people, and
processes across each activity. The overall plan must maintain the effective distribution
of skill sets across the organization to ensure full development of the workforce. The
Direct Heads of Contracting Activities will provide the optimization report to the ASA
(Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) annually. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(11) develop a process for early engagement between requiring activities and
contracting to address deficiencies in the definition of the requirement and preparation
of the contract request package to improve the accuracy of the requirements package
and reduce cycle times. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(12) establish a Program Integrator and Review Board policy to review contract
document packages before submission to the contracting office to improve the accuracy
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6: Streamlining the
Contracting Process)
3
of the requirements package, impose standardization, and reduce cycle times. (Target:
NLT 30 April 2018.)
(13) establish a training course, in conjunction with the Defense Acquisition
University, for requiring activities who write the contract request documents and source
selection evaluation criteria to improve the accuracy of requirement packages and
reduce cycle times. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(14) update and reissue policy memorandum establishing the alignment of
contracting offices to customers. The alignment will promote habitual customer
relationships that leverage subject matter expertise and achieve more efficient
contracting outcomes, as well as minimize the pursuit of assisted acquisitions by Army
customers at non-Department of Defense contracting activities. (Target: NLT 30 April
2018.)
(15) write a legislative change proposal for the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 to limit the time to file a protest with the U.S. Court of Federal
claims to 10 days (mirroring U.S. Government Accountability Office timelines) to reduce
extended protest periods and to establish a statute allowing the Government to recoup
costs associated with frivolous protest as determined by the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
b. The Commander, Army Materiel Command will:
(1) direct the establishment of a Contracting-Acquisition Review Board with
leadership at the appropriate general or flag officer level to drive collaboration of
acquisition and nonacquisition stakeholders for Acquisition Categories I, II, and III
acquisition programs.
(a) The Review Board will be cohosted by the Commanders of the Life Cycle
Management Commands and, in the case of the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile
Command, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, and U.S. Army Tank-
Automotive and Armaments Command, the Program Executive Officer. (Target: NLT
30 April 2018.)
(b) When the Life Cycle Management Command does not support the Program
Executive Office, the Contracting-Acquisition Review Board will be cohosted by the
customer and the supporting Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting. The
Commander, U.S. Army Contracting Command will be the adjudicating authority when
conflicting contracting priorities occur. (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
(2) prepare proposed changes to Army Regulation 70-1 (Army Acquisition
Policy). (Target: NLT 30 April 2018.)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6: Streamlining the
Contracting Process)
4
4. The policies in this directive apply to the Active Army, Army National Guard/Army
National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
5. This directive is rescinded upon publication of the revised regulations.
Encl Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6: Streamlining the
Contracting Process)
5
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
REFERENCES
a. Section 1735, Title 10, United States Code, The Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act of 1990.
b. Section 1741, Title 10, United States Code, Policies and Programs: Establishment
and Implementation.
c. Section 3016b(5)(A), Title 10, United States Code, Assistant Secretaries of the
Army.
d. Section 1122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law
114-328.
e. Section 808, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law
114-92, Volume 129 Statute at Large, p. 888–889.
f. Chief of Staff of the Army, Report to Congress on Linking and Streamlining Army
Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes in Response to National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, Section 808 (May 2016).
g. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System),
May 12, 2003, Certified Current as of November 20, 2007.
h. DoD Instruction 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System), January 7,
2015; Incorporating Change 1, Effective January 26, 2017 and Change 2, Effective
February 2, 2017.
i. Army Directive 2017-22 (Implementation of Acquisition Reform Initiatives 1 and 2),
12 Sep 2017.
j. Army Regulation 70-1 (Army Acquisition Policy), 16 June 2017.
k. Army Regulation 70-13 (Management and Oversight of Service Acquisitions),
30 July 2010.
l. Memorandum, SAAL-ZA, 31 October 2016, subject: Improvements to Army
Contracting Processes. 

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-35 ACQUISITION REFORM INITIATIVE #8: ASSESSING PERFORMANCE WITH METRICS

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6466_AD2017-35_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
1. References. A complete list of references is at enclosure 1.
2. The purpose of this directive is to implement measures and metrics that assess
performance across the acquisition enterprise and to assign offices of primary
responsibility (OPRs) for implementing metrics across seven lines of effort (LOEs).
Assessment of the near-term effects and long-term outcomes of acquisition reform is an
enduring strategic Army priority requiring a sustained effort synchronized across all
organizations. OPRs support cross-functional understanding of performance across the
Army acquisition enterprise against standards, goals, and desired outcomes. Metrics
will be continually reviewed and will evolve over time as objectives are met and new
targets are defined. This directive is a continuation of Army Directive 2017-22.
3. OPRs will coordinate the deliberate, phased implementation of this cross-functional
strategic performance measurement effort across stakeholder organizations. This
directive provides the approach for refining, implementing, and reporting functional
metrics in enclosures 2 through 8. Reviews will be conducted to ensure that collected
metrics are value-added, inform decisions, and support optimal acquisition outcomes.
OPRs will coordinate and integrate required information and decision briefings to
Headquarters, Department of the Army senior leaders in accordance with the following
process:
a. Phase 0: Initial Assessment and Refinement of Metrics. Each OPR will:
(1) assess the initial metrics for their LOE and identify additional metrics that can
be used to assess performance.
(2) prepare preliminary metrics results, OPR recommendations on LOE metrics
to be collected, and a summary of progress toward the overall LOE functional
assessment objectives.
b. Phase 1: Metrics Collection and Reporting Planning. Each OPR will:
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
2
(1) design an achievable metric data collection plan and an automated metric
reporting capability that can reliably collect valid metrics that describe performance
against desired outcomes.
(2) prepare Phase 1 metrics results and summary of progress toward LOE
metrics reporting objectives, including an update on an automated metric reporting
capability with common operating pictures or other data displays.
c. Phase 2: Metrics Reporting. Each OPR will:
(1) execute metric data collection to achieve initial operating capability (IOC)
metric reporting capability and increase understanding of Army acquisition enterprise
performance assessment reporting capability gaps to assess effects on desired
outcomes.
(2) prepare Phase 2 metrics results, summary of progress toward
operationalized metric reporting capability, and planned schedule for transition to the
automated metric reporting capability.
d. Phase 3: Sustainment of Metrics Reporting. Each OPR will:
(1) operationalize the execution of metric data collection to achieve full operating
capability and continue to identify and mitigate performance assessment reporting
capability gaps against desired end states and mission-critical measure areas. The
goal is to report metric data collection no later than 6 months from the date of IOC.
(2) prepare metrics results and LOE performance assessment findings.
e. Each OPR will present a quarterly decision brief to the Under Secretary of the
Army and Vice Chief of Staff, Army on LOE metrics. (Target: No later than (NLT)
30 December 2017.)
4. I direct the following actions:
a. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology) will serve as OPR for the following LOEs: Science and Technology,
Acquisition, Contracting, and Logistics.
b. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller) will serve as OPR for the Resourcing LOE.
c. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command will serve as the OPR for the
Requirements LOE.
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
3
d. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command will serve as the OPR for the Test and
Evaluation LOE.
5. OPR responsibilities, end state measures, and initial metrics for each LOE are
detailed as follows: Requirements (enclosure 2), Science and Technology
(enclosure 3), Resourcing (enclosure 4), Acquisition (enclosure 5), Contracting
(enclosure 6), Test and Evaluation (enclosure 7), and Logistics (enclosure 8).
6. The policies in this directive apply to the Active Army, Army National Guard/Army
National Guard of the United States, and U.S. Army Reserve.
7. This directive may be rescinded at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army.
Encls Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-35 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #8: Assessing
Performance With Metrics)
4
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 1
REFERENCES
a. Section 1735, Title 10, United States Code, Education, training, and experience
requirements for critical acquisition positions.
b. Section 1741, Title 10, United States Code, Policies and Programs: Establishment
and Implementation.
c. Section 3016b(5)(A), Title 10, United States Code, Assistant Secretaries of the
Army.
d. Section 1122, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law
114-328.
e. Section 808, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Public Law
114-92.
f. Chief of Staff of the Army, Report to Congress on Linking and Streamlining Army
Requirements, Acquisition, and Budget Processes in Response to National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, Section 808 (May 2016).
g. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5000.01 (The Defense Acquisition System),
May 12, 2003, Certified Current as of November 20, 2007.
h. DoD Instruction 5000.02 (Operation of the Defense Acquisition System), January 7,
2015; Incorporating Change 3, Effective August 10, 2017.
i. Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) General Orders No. 2017-01
(Assignment of Functions and Responsibilities Within Headquarters, Department of the
Army), 5 January 2017.
j. Army Directive 2017-22 (Implementation of Acquisition Reform Initiatives 1 and 2),
12 Sep 2017.
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 2
REQUIREMENTS LINE OF EFFORT
OPR Office of Primary Responsibility: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)
End State: Timely, quality, capability requirements documents aligned to Chief of Staff, Army (CSA) priorities and
operational risks executed by a trained and certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Capability requirements aligned to CSA priorities and operational risks, timely
capability requirements development; timely capability requirements documents staffing; quality capability requirements to
the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC), and qualified requirements workforce.
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.1 Capability requirements
documents aligned to CSA
priorities and operational
risks
LOE 1.1.1 Requirements documents
aligned to CSA priorities
% of requirements documents aligned to CSA priorities 100%
LOE 1.1.2 Requirements documents
aligned to extremely high-
risk or high-risk capability
gaps identified by TRADOC
capability needs
assessment.
% of requirements documents addressing extremely
high-risk or high-risk capability gaps
80%
LOE 1.2 Timely capability
requirements Development
LOE 1.2.1 Timely initial capabilities
document (ICD)
development/Centers of
Excellence (COEs)
% of documents meeting the requirements documents
development time standard (120 days)
100%
LOE 1.2.2 Timely capability
development document
(CDD) Development/COEs
LOE 1.2.3 Timely capability production
document (CPD)
Development/COEs
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 2
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.3 Timely requirements
documents staffing
LOE 1.3.1 Timely ICD staffing/COEs % of documents meeting the COE staffing time
standard (30 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.2 Timely CDD staffing/COEs
LOE 1.3.3 Timely CPD staffing/COEs
LOE 1.3.4 Timely ICD staffing/army
Capabilities Integration
Center (ARCIC)
% of documents meeting the ARCIC staffing time
standard (30 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.5 Timely CDD staffing/ARCIC
LOE 1.3.6 Timely CPD staffing/ARCIC
LOE 1.3.7 Timely ICD staffing/HQDA % of documents meeting the HQDA staffing time
standard (90 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.8 Timely CDD staffing/HQDA
LOE 1.3.9 Timely CPD staffing/HQDA
LOE 1.3.10 Timely ICD staffing/Joint
Requirements Oversight
Council (JROC)
% of documents meeting the JROC staffing time
standard (97 days)
100%
LOE 1.3.11 Timely CDD Staffing/JROC
LOE 1.3.12 Timely CPD Staffing/JROC
LOE 1.4 Quality requirements
documentation to AROC
LOE 1.4.1 Requirement
documentation first pass
through AROC Review Board
% of requirements documents that received first-time
approval from AROC Review Board
80%
LOE 1.4.2 Requirement
documentation first pass
through AROC
% of requirements documents that received first-time
approval from AROC
80%
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 2
Table 2-1: Requirements Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 1.5 Qualified requirements
workforce
LOE 1.5.1 Effectively trained TRADOC
capability developers
% of TRADOC capability developers who have
completed recommended training
90%
LOE 1.5.2 Effectively trained Army
Staff capability
requirements workforce
% of Army Staff capability requirements workforce
who have completed recommended training
90%
LOE 1.5.3 Certified capability
developers
% of TRADOC capability developers who are certified 90%
LOE 1.5.4 Certified Army Staff
capability requirements
workforce
% of Army Staff capability requirements workforce
who are certified
90%
Army Directive 2017-XX Enclosure 3
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Innovative projects aligned to strategic guidance with transitions to internal and external customers.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Science and Technology (S&T) programs aligned to S&T Strategy; S&T resource
reprogramming; S&T project technology impact; S&T cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs); S&T
project maturation; S&T project transitions; S&T innovation.
Table 2-2: Science and Technology Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 2.1 S&T projects aligned to S&T
Strategy
LOE 2.1.1 S&T projects aligned to
Secretary of the Army/CSA
priorities
% of S&T projects aligned with Secretary of the
Army/CSA priorities approved by S&T Advisory Group. 100%
LOE 2.2 S&T resources
Reprogramming
LOE 2.2.1 S&T resource
reprogramming
Amount of the S&T budget reprogramed each year of
the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).
≥ $300M in
POM
LOE 2.3 S&T project technology
Impact
LOE 2.3.1 S&T disruptive technology % of planned S&T projects that are disruptive
technology. ≥ 50% projects
LOE 2.3.2 S&T incremental technology % of planned S&T projects that are incremental
technology. ≤ 25% projects
LOE 2.4 S&T CRADAs LOE 2.4.1 S&T CRADAs with industry
and academia
# of CRADAs initiated with industry and academia over
the last 12 months. ≥ 20 annually
LOE 2.5 S&T projects Maturation LOE 2.5.1 S&T project Technology
Readiness Level
demonstrations (6.1, 6.2,
6.3)
# of budget activity 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 S&T technology
readiness level demonstrations conducted over the
last 12 months.
≥ 50 annually
LOE 2.5.2 S&T prototype
demonstrations (6.4)
# of budget activity 6.4 S&T technology
demonstrations conducted by an S&T organization
over the last 12 months.
≥ 6 annually
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 3
Table 2-2: Science and Technology Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 2.6 S&T project Transitions LOE 2.6.1 S&T projects with transition
agreement (TA)
# of approved S&T projects with a TA. ≥ 1,000
LOE 2.6.2 S&T projects with TA
transitioned to external
customer
# of S&T projects identified in a TA that transitioned to
an external customer in the past last 12 months.
≥ 150 annually
LOE 2.6.3 S&T projects with TA
transitioned to S&T
organization
# of S&T projects identified in a TA that transitioned to
an S&T Organization in the past last 12 months.
≥ 300 annually
LOE 2.6.4 S&T projects without TA # of S&T projects without TA < 100
LOE 2.6.5 S&T projects terminated # of S&T projects terminated over the last 12 months ≥ 10 annually
LOE 2.7 S&T project innovation LOE 2.7.1 S&T organization
publications
# of papers published in the previous 12 months. ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.7.2 S&T organization patent
applications
# of patent applications in the previous 12 months ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.7.3 S&T organization patents
issued
# of patents issued in the previous 12 months ≥ 200 annually
LOE 2.8 S&T project timeliness LOE 2.8.1 S&T project schedule
growth
% of S&T projects with > 10% growth over plan < 10%
LOE 2.8.2 Significant S&T project
schedule growth
% of S&T projects with > 20% schedule growth over
plan
< 5%
LOE 2.8.3 S&T projects active in
> 5 years
% of S&T projects in the S&T Portfolio over 5 years < 10%
LOE 2.9 S&T project cost LOE 2.9.1 S&T project cost growth % of S&T projects with > 10% cost growth over plan < 10%
LOE 2.9.2 Significant S&T project cost
growth
% of S&T projects with > 20% cost growth over plan < 5%
LOE 2.10 S&T project performance LOE 2.10.1 S&T projects meeting their
technology objectives
% of S&T projects achieving planned technology
objectives
> 90%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 4
RESOURCING LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and
Comptroller)
End State: Accurate timely acquisition cost estimates and effective budget obligation and execution.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Program obligation rate, program execution rate, program cost estimate accuracy;
timely Army cost analysis requirements description and submission; timely Army Cost Position development.
Table 2-3: Resourcing Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 3.1 Program obligation rate LOE 3.1.1 Research, development,
test, and evaluation
(RDT&E) programs meeting
first year obligation rate
(90%)
% of programs meeting the appropriations spending
requirements (in accordance with Office of the
Secretary of Defense policy)
100%
LOE 3.1.2 RDT&E programs meeting
second year obligation rate
(100%)
LOE 3.1.3 Procurement programs
meeting first year obligation
rate (80%)
LOE 3.1.4 Procurement programs
meeting second year
obligation rate (90%)
LOE 3.1.5 Procurement programs
meeting third year
obligation rate (100%)
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 4
Table 2-3: Resourcing Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 3.2 Program execution rate LOE 3.2.1 RDT&E programs meeting
first year execution rate
(55%)
% of programs meeting the obligations spending
requirements (in accordance with Office of the
Secretary of Defense policy)
100%
LOE 3.2.2 RDT&E programs meeting
second year execution rate
(90%)
LOE 3.2.3 RDT&E programs meeting
third year execution rate
(100%)
LOE 3.3 Program cost estimate
accuracy
LOE 3.3.1 Program Average
Procurement Unit Cost
(APUC) estimate accuracy
% of ACAT I programs maintaining APUC within 5% of
the Milestone C cost estimate
100%
LOE 3.4 Timely submission of cost
analysis requirements
description
LOE 3.4.1 Timely submission of cost
analysis requirements
description
% of Major Defense Acquisition Programs that submit
the draft cost analysis requirements description to
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Cost and
Economics) at least 180 days before the Army
Overarching Integrated Product Team
100%
LOE 3.5 Timely Army Cost Position
development
LOE 3.5.1 Timely Army Cost Position
development
% of Major Defense Acquisition Programs that meet
timeline standards (≤ 90 days) for development of the
Army Cost Position
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 5
ACQUISITION LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Mature programs developed on cost and on schedule approved under tailored milestone documentation.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Program cost growth, procurement cost growth, program schedule growth, program
maturation, and tailored program milestone
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.1 Program cost growth LOE 4.1.1 Program cost growth:
original baseline estimate
for the Program Acquisition
Unit Cost (PAUC) to current
PAUC estimate
% of programs with ≥ 20% growth over originally
approved Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) PAUC
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.1.2 Program cost growth:
current baseline estimate
for the PAUC to current
PAUC estimate
% of programs with ≥ 10% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.1.3 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 30% growth over original
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 30% growth over originally
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.1.4 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 15% growth over current
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 15% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.1.5 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 50% growth over original
# of programs with ≥ 50% growth over originally
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
baseline PAUC estimate
LOE 4.1.6 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 25% growth over current
baseline PAUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 25% growth over currently
approved APB PAUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2 Procurement cost growth LOE 4.2.1 Program cost growth:
original baseline estimate
for the APUC to current
APUC estimate
% change in APUC from the originally approved APB
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.2.2 Program cost growth:
current baseline estimate
for the APUC to current
APUC estimate
% change in APUC from the currently approved APB
estimate ≤ 5%
LOE 4.2.3 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 30% growth over original
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 30% growth over originally
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.4 Significant program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 15% growth over current
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 15% growth over currently
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.5 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 50% growth over original
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 50% growth over originally
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.6 Critical program cost
breach: programs with
≥ 25% growth over current
baseline APUC estimate
# of programs with ≥ 25% growth over currently
approved APB APUC estimate 0
LOE 4.2.7 APB breach: cost # of APBs that were changed in the last 12 months
because of cost increase 0
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.3 Program schedule growth LOE 4.3.1 Program schedule baseline
growth: milestone delay
% of programs with > 30-day delay for milestone
decision in the last 12 months.
≤ 10%
LOE 4.3.2 Significant program
schedule breach: programs
≥ 6-month schedule delay
regardless of threshold
# of programs with ≥ 6-month schedule delay in the
last 12 months.
0
LOE 4.3.3 APB deviation: schedule # of APB objective schedule changes (objective value
plus 6 months) in the last 12 months.
0
LOE 4.4 Program maturation LOE 4.4.1 Validation of program Key
Performance Parameters (at
operational testing)
% of programs able to meet Key Performance
Parameters during operational testing over the last
12 months.
100%
LOE 4.4.2 Programs with documented
risk mitigation plan
% of programs with documented risk mitigation plan
NLT Milestone B. 100%
LOE 4.4.3 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: limited user
test
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of the limited user test. 100%
LOE 4.4.4 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: initial
operational test
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of the initial operational test. 100%
LOE 4.4.5 Programs meeting reliability
growth curve: follow-on
operational test and
evaluation (T&E)
% programs meeting planned reliability growth plan at
the completion of follow-on operational T&E.
100%
LOE 4.4.6 APB breach: performance # of APBs that were changed in the last 6 months
because they did not meet performance requirements.
0
LOE 4.4.7 Programs granted full
materiel release
# of programs granted full materiel release over the
last 12 months.
≥ 70
Army Directive 2017-35 4 Enclosure 5
Table 2-4: Acquisition Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 4.4.8 Programs granted
conditional materiel release
# of programs granted conditional materiel release
over the last 12 months.
≤ 20
LOE 4.4.9 conditional materiel
released programs without
full materiel release funding
% of programs granted conditional materiel release
during the past 12 months that were not provided the
funding to achieve full materiel release.
0
LOE 4.5 Tailored program milestone
documentation
LOE 4.5.1 Tailored program milestone
documentation
% of programs with tailored regulatory acquisition
documentation at a milestone review over the last
12 months.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 6
CONTRACTING LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Timely acquisition contract requirement development and efficient contracting process executed by a manned
and certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Timely acquisition contract requirement development; timely procurement contracting,
reduced bridge contracts, and manned and certified contracting workforce.
Table 2-5: Contracting Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 5.1 Timely acquisition contract
requirement development
LOE 5.1.1 System acquisition activities
meet acquisition
requirements leadtime
% of system acquisition activities meeting the
acquisition requirements leadtime standard (90 days).
100%
LOE 5.2 Timely procurement
contracting
LOE 5.2.1 U.S. Army Materiel
Command (AMC)/U.S. Army
Contacting Command
contracts meet
procurement action
leadtime
% of contract actions meeting the procurement action
leadtime standard (180 days).
100%
LOE 5.2.2 Timely solicitation phase
legal review
% of contract legal reviews meeting the legal review
cycle times standard (10 days)
100%
LOE 5.2.3 Timely evaluation phase
legal review
LOE 5.2.4 Timely solicitation phase
AMC peer review
% of contract peer reviews meeting the AMC peer
review cycle times standard (10 days).
100%
LOE 5.2.5 Timely evaluation phase
AMC peer review
LOE 5.3 Reduce bridge contracts LOE 5.3.1 Reduce bridge contracts # of bridge contracts awarded during the past TBD
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 6
Table 2-5: Contracting Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
12 months.
LOE 5.4 Manned and certified
contracting workforce
LOE 5.4.1 Authorized positions: fill
rate
% of authorized contracting positions that are filled. ≥ 90%
LOE 5.4.2 Onhand personnel:
certification rate
% of contracting positions that are certified to their
required level.
≥ 95%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 7
TEST AND EVALUATION LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
End State: Effective test planning with on cost and on schedule T&E reporting executed by a certified workforce.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Effective test planning, test cost growth, test schedule timeliness; test reporting
timeliness, test performance and assessment; test workforce certification.
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
LOE 6.1 Effective test planning LOE 6.1.1 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct grade:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct grade of Soldiers
were available to support testing over the last
12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.2 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct grade:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.3 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct skill:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct military
occupational specialty Soldiers were available to
support testing over the last 12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.4 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct skill:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.5 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct quantity:
developmental testing
% of test programs with the correct number of Soldiers
were available to support testing over the last
12 months.
80%
LOE 6.1.6 Programs with Soldier test
support/correct quantity:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.7 Programs with Soldier test
support on time:
% of test programs with the Soldiers provided on time 80%
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 7
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
developmental testing to support testing over the last 12 months.
LOE 6.1.8 Programs with Soldier test
support on time:
operational testing
LOE 6.1.9 Programs with critical
system evaluation plan
issues elevated to general
officer level
% of programs where critical issues identified by the
T&E Working IPT during System Evaluation Plan review
are raised to the general officer level.
0
LOE 6.2 Test cost growth LOE 6.2.1 Test cost growth:
developmental testing
% of test events with greater than 10% cost growth
over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.2.2 Test cost growth:
operational testing
LOE 6.2.3 Program testing exceeding
$40 million (development
and operational testing)
# of programs that exceed $40 million total test cost to
conduct developmental and operational testing.
0
LOE 6.2.4 Programs with follow-on
T&E (after operational
testing)
% of programs that require follow-on T&E. 0%
LOE 6.3 Test schedule timeliness LOE 6.3.1 On time start:
developmental testing
% of program to start testing on time (based on dates
provided in the signed T&E Master Plan).
90%
LOE 6.3.2 On time start: operational
testing
LOE 6.3.3 On time end:
developmental testing
% of programs to end testing on time (based on dates
in the signed T&E Master Plan).
90%
LOE 6.3.4 On time end: operational
testing
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 7
Table 2-6. Test and Evaluation Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metric Goal
LOE 6.3.5 On time delivery:
production-representative
test articles
% of test programs that were significantly affected
because of the lack of production-representative test
articles over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.3.6 Growth in test schedule:
developmental testing
% of test programs with greater than 10% schedule
growth over the last 12 months.
LOE 6.3.7 Program Government
developmental testing
exceeding 2 years
# of programs where Government developmental
testing (system-level testing) exceeds 2 years.
0%
LOE 6.3.8 Growth in test schedule:
operational testing
% of test programs with more than 10% schedule
growth over the last 12 months.
0%
LOE 6.4 Test reporting timeliness LOE 6.4.1 Timely Army test report:
developmental testing
% of Army programs that have an approved test report
within 60 days of the end of test.
100%
LOE 6.4.2 Timely Army test report:
operational testing
100%
LOE 6.4.3 Timely Joint test report:
developmental testing
% of Joint programs that have an approved test report
within 90 days of the end of test.
100%
LOE 6.4.4 Timely Joint test report:
operational testing
100%
LOE 6.5 Test performance
assessment
LOE 6.5.1 Programs assessed effective % of programs assessed as effective during the last
12 months.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 Enclosure 8
LOGISTICS LINE OF EFFORT
Office of Primary Responsibility: Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
End State: Effective life-cycle planning, including organic industrial base (OIB) performance, supports on time program
transition to the Operational Army.
Mission Critical Measure Areas: Programs with reliability, availability, maintainability, cost (RAM-C) performance
measures; intellectual property strategy documentation; programs meeting sustainment performance parameters at full-
rate production (FRP); programs with independent logistics assessment (ILA); programs with a life-cycle sustainment plan
(LCSP) addressing transition execution; post-IOC program transitions; post-IOC program contract support; OIB
performance; and materiel readiness.
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.1 Programs with RAM-cost
performance measures
LOE 7.1.1 Programs with RAM-cost
report (NLT Milestone B)
% of new start programs with a RAM-cost report 100%
LOE 7.2 Documentation of
intellectual property
strategy
LOE 7.2.1 Programs with intellectual
property strategy in LSCP
(NLT Milestone C)
% of full developmental programs with an intellectual
property strategy (to include technical data package)
within the LCSP.
100%
LOE 7.3 Programs meeting LSCP
performance objectives by
FRP
LOE 7.3.1 Programs meeting
sustainment Key
Performance Parameter
objectives by FRP
% of programs to achieve life-cycle sustainment KPP
objectives by FRP.
100%
LOE 7.3.2 Programs meeting LSCP
RAM objectives by FRP
% of programs to achieve RAM performance objectives
by FRP.
100%
LOE 7.4 Programs with ILA LOE 7.4.1 Production programs with
ILA at FRP plus 2 years
% of programs with an ILA within 2 years after FRP. 100%
LOE 7.4.2 Production programs with
ILA 5 at Milestone C plus
5 years
% of programs with an ILA within 5 years after
Milestone C.
100%
Army Directive 2017-35 2 Enclosure 8
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.5 Programs with LSCP
addressing execution of
transition
LOE 7.5.1 Programs with LSCP
addressing execution of
transition (NLT Milestone C)
% of all programs with an agreement covering the
transition of sustainment execution activities between
AMC and Program Manager/Program Executive Officer
outlined in LCSP.
95%
LOE 7.6 Post-IOC program
transitions
LOE 7.6.1 Post-IOC programs
transitioned to sustainment
# of post-IOC Program of Records that have
transitioned to sustainment over the last 6 months.
> 10
LOE 7.7 Post-IOC program
contractor support
LOE 7.7.1 Post-IOC programs requiring
interim contract support at
IOC plus 3 years
# of programs beyond IOC plus 3 years requiring
interim contractor support.
≤ 5
LOE 7.7.2 Post-IOC programs requiring
contractor field service
representatives at IOC plus
3 years
# of programs beyond IOC plus 3 years requiring
contractor field service representatives.
≤ 5
LOE 7.8 OIB LOE 7.8.1 Effect on OIB readiness % of the planned OIB contribution achieved or
forecasted surge capability.
TBD
LOE 7.8.2 OIB surge capability % of the depots that met surge requirements for full
spectrum operations.
TBD
LOE 7.8.3 OIB performance to promise % of depots meeting OIB performance to promise
objectives.
TBD
LOE 7.8.4 OIB revenue Sales revenue generated by the OIB versus plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.5 OIB carryover (actual) Actual carryover as % of plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.6 OIB carryover (forecasted) Forecasted carryover as % of plan. TBD
LOE 7.8.7 OIB cost Total cost to serve (consisting of planning, sourcing,
material, production, fulfillment, and returns) versus
plan.
TBD
LOE 7.8.8 OIB efficiency (use) Use of OIB resources. TBD
LOE 7.8.9 OIB efficiency (return) Return on OIB resources. TBD
LOE 7.8.10 OIB requirements churn Measure of changes in requirements in terms of
magnitude, timing, and effect of change.
TBD
Army Directive 2017-35 3 Enclosure 8
Table 2-7: Logistics Metrics
Level One Measures Level Two Measures Metrics Goal
LOE 7.8.11 OIB funding churn Measure of changes in planned, programmed,
budgeted, or actual funding levels in terms of
magnitude, timing, and effect of change.
TBD
LOE 7.9 Materiel readiness LOE 7.9.1 Depot-level reparables
meeting time between
overhaul requirements
% of depot-level reparable parts not making time
between overhaul during the last 6 months.
≥ 90%
LOE 7.9.2 Programs meeting unit
status reporting
requirements
% of systems not meeting DA unit status reporting
standards within the last 6 months.
≥ 90%
LOE 7.9.3 Programs with non-mission-
capable equipment
> 30 days on unit status
report
# of programs with equipment identified as non-
mission-capable for supply for more than 30 days on
unit status reports within the last 6 months.
0
LOE 7.9.4 Weapons systems with
> 5 messages before FRP
# of weapons systems with more than five messages
(any type) before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.5 Software systems with
> 5 messages before FRP
# of software systems with more than five messages
(any type) before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.6 Platforms with > five
messages before FRP
# of platforms with more than five messages (any type)
before FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.7 Weapons systems with
≥ two messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of weapons systems with two or more messages (any
type) within 2 years after FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.8 Software Systems with
≥ two messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of software systems with two or more messages (any
type) within 2 years after FRP.
0
LOE 7.9.9 Platforms with > two
messages at FRP plus
2 years
# of platforms with two or more messages (any type)
within 2 years after FRP.
0

Read More

ARMY DIR 2017-33 ENABLING THE ARMY MODERNIZATION TASK FORCE

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN6391_AD2017-33_Web_Final.pdf

MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
1. On 6 October 2017, I directed the establishment of a task force under the leadership
of Lieutenant General Edward C. Cardon, Director of Business Transformation, to
explore all options to establish unity of command and unity of effort that consolidates
the Army’s modernization process under one roof. This task force will report directly to
the Under Secretary of the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army on a biweekly basis
with a target for initial operating capability of the chosen option no later than 1 June
2018.
2. On 13 October 2017, I directed General Cardon to focus the task force’s efforts on
the design and establishment of a new command. Effective immediately, the Director of
Business Transformation is assigned the additional responsibility as the Director of the
Army Modernization Task Force until relieved or the task force is consumed by the
establishment of a new Army Command (ACOM).
3. Establishing unity of command and unity of effort that consolidates the
modernization process under a new command will allow us to fundamentally alter the
institutional Army, including Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) and all the
ACOMs and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs).
4. I am further directing General Cardon to examine the current allocation of functions
within HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs regarding the modernization process and ascertain
major problems stemming from the Department of the Army’s current organization and
management. Identification of the problems will lead to recommendations to redefine
the roles, functions, authorities, structure, organization, and resources of HQDA,
ACOMs, and DRUs and to design, document, and resource the headquarters
component of a new command to provide unity of command, unity of effort, and unity of
purpose for Army modernization under one roof.
5. To provide the widest possible latitude in executing this task, General Cardon has
discretion to select task force members with any permanent assignments subject to
review by the Chief of Staff of the Army for general officers, the Under Secretary of the
Army for Senior Executive Service members, and the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army for
other members. My expectation is that commands and organizations with personnel
identified for the task force will expeditiously enable their full participation.
S E C R E T A R Y O F T H E A R M Y
W A S H I N G T O N
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
2
6. Terms of reference for the review of Army modernization and reorganization are at
the enclosure. The terms will guide the task force’s efforts, providing left and right
limits, objectives, assumptions, and deliverables. Within these limits, General Cardon
has direct tasking authority across the Army, including the Army Secretariat.
7. In addition, General Cardon is provided the following authorities and responsibilities
in support of the task force’s mission:
a. Oversight of external communications related to this effort to minimize divergent
messages from commands.
b. Effective immediately, the Director of the Office of Process Innovation and
Integration is a direct report and will oversee the Cross-Functional Team Pilots.
c. Expedited hiring authority with priority from U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources
Agency.
8. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) and the
Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel Command will develop a recommended list
of key modernization-related positions from which to defer hiring until we know if that
role persists in the future. They will submit the list through General Cardon to the
Deputy Under Secretary of the Army no later than 17 November 2017.
9. This initiative is of particular significance at this time, and I want you to be aware of
my personal interest in it. Accordingly, General Cardon is authorized direct access to,
and priority support from, all major commanders and heads of staff agencies. I am sure
he will receive full cooperation from all individuals.
Encl Ryan D. McCarthy
Acting
DISTRIBUTION:
Principal Officials of Headquarters, Department of the Army
Commander
U.S. Army Forces Command
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Pacific
U.S. Army Europe
U.S. Army Central
(CONT)
SUBJECT: Army Directive 2017-33 (Enabling the Army Modernization Task Force)
3
DISTRIBUTION: (CONT)
U.S. Army North
U.S. Army South
U.S. Army Africa/Southern European Task Force
U.S. Army Special Operations Command
Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command
U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Strategic Command
U.S. Army Cyber Command
U.S. Army Medical Command
U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command
U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Military District of Washington
U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command
U.S. Army Installation Management Command
U.S. Army Human Resources Command
U.S. Army Financial Management Command
U.S. Army Marketing and Engagement Brigade
Superintendent, United States Military Academy
Director, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
Executive Director, Arlington National Cemetery
Commandant, U.S. Army War College
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Human Resources Agency
CF:
Director, Army National Guard
Director of Business Transformation
Commander, Eighth Army
Enclosure
INITIAL TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE
REVIEW OF ARMY MODERNIZATION AND ORGANIZATION
1. Problem. The Army’s current requirements and capabilities development practices
take too long. On average, the Army takes from 3 to 5 years to approve requirements
and another 10 years to design, build, and test new weapon systems. The Army is
losing near-peer competitive advantage in many areas: we are outranged, outgunned,
and increasingly outdated. Private industry and some potential adversaries are fielding
new capabilities much faster than we are. The speed of change in warfighting
concepts, threats, and technology is outpacing current Army modernization constructs
and processes.
2. Objectives. The objectives of the Review of Army Modernization and Organization
are to:
a. provide recommendations to redefine the roles, functions, authorities, structure,
organization, and resources of Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA); Army
Commands (ACOMs); and Direct Reporting Units (DRUs) and to design, document, and
provide resources to the headquarters component of a new ACOM to provide unity of
command, effort, and purpose for Army modernization under one roof.
b. examine the current allocation of modernization functions within HQDA, ACOMs,
and DRUs to ascertain major problems stemming from the Department of the Army’s
(DA’s) current organization and management.
c. develop and analyze reorganization alternatives that would eliminate or reduce
identified problem areas by, among others:
(1) eliminating duplication of effort and excessive fragmenting of functions,
responsibilities, and resources.
(2) consolidating responsibilities into logical and workable functional areas.
(3) creating an organization that is aligned to the current and projected Defense
environment.
(4) improving effectiveness by clearly fixing and limiting responsibility for
accomplishment of major tasks within the functional areas.
(5) ensuring a strong command structure.
(6) providing for the flexible use of skills and capabilities of both military and
civilian personnel.
(7) delegating to subordinate commands and agencies functions that need not
be performed at the HQDA level and are not reserved to the Army Secretariat or Army
Staff by law.
2
(8) creating options for reorganizations based on workable, realistic procedures
instead of on abstract functional relationships.
d. identify any legal or statutory constraints to a more efficient and effective
organization of Army modernization efforts and recommend to the Secretary of the
Army proposed legislative changes for congressional enactment.
e. arrange those reorganization options in recommended priority to best correct
major organization and management problems while remaining most responsive to
current and foreseeable Army requirements.
f. develop the effect—both favorable and unfavorable—of implementing the
selected reorganization options.
g. recommend one organization.
h. prepare a time-phased plan and procedures for implementing the proposed
organization.
3. Limits. The Review of Army Modernization and Organization:
a. will examine DA functions, organization, and procedures in the continental United
States, including (but not necessarily limited to):
(1) U.S. Army Forces Command;
(1) U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command;
(3) U.S. Army Materiel Command;
(4) U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command;
(5) U.S. Army Installation and Management Command; and
(6) HQDA, including the Army Secretariat and Army Staff, understanding that
statutory constraints currently restrict the reassignment of certain functions and
responsibilities to organizations outside the Secretariat and, in some cases, outside a
specific Assistant Secretary of the Army.
b. will limit internal review of existing organizations and installations to ascertain
proper assignment of missions and functions to ACOMs, DRUs, and major HQDA staff
sections, understanding statutory constraints currently restrict the reassignment of
certain functions and responsibilities to organizations outside the Secretariat and, in
some cases, outside a specific Assistant Secretary of the Army.
c. will not address reorganization proposals for the joint arena or Army tactical
organizations.
3
4. Timeframe. No later than 6 February 2018, the Army Modernization Task Force will
present to the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army for decision the
recommendations to redefine roles, functions, authorities, structure, organization, and
resources of HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs, including the initial operational capability plan
and full operational capability concept for a new ACOM, in sufficient detail to establish
an initial headquarters with necessary personnel and resources.
5. Assumptions
a. The missions of DA will remain unchanged.
b. The Department of Defense and Congress will continue to impose resource
constraints that prescribe ceilings under which the Army must function.
c. Legislative relief can be obtained by requesting statutory changes that would
enhance the effectiveness of Army modernization and the efficiency of the Army
organization.
6. Essential Elements of Analysis
a. Determine the most critical internal organizational and management problems
facing the Army’s modernization processes today.
b. Determine major modernization problems that are amenable to solution by
changing DA’s current organization and/or management techniques.
c. Develop those changes required in HQDA, ACOM, and DRU structures. The
changes should consist of defining the:
(1) required realignment of functions both within and among HQDA, ACOMs,
and DRUs.
(2) required consolidations, transfers, or eliminations of HQDA Staff or major
elements, commands, and DRUs.
d. Consider the effect of actions recommended in major studies or documents such
as the:
(1) National Commission on the Future of the Army Report.
(2) Decker Wagner Report (Army Strong: Equipped, Trained and Ready, Final
Report of the 2010 Army Acquisition Review).
(3) Reno Report (Reforming the Requirements and Resourcing Processes in
Support of Army Institutional Adaptation).
e. Develop a phased implementation plan for accomplishing any proposed
changes. As a part of the implementation, consider:
4
(1) the vital role of civilian and military personnel’s morale, tradition, and stability
within DA.
(2) the procedures for reducing turbulence resulting from shifting activities at
major installations.
(3) the priorities for conducting the implementation.
f. Consider the Army commitments in other activities of the Department of Defense
and the Federal Government.
g. Review the organizational patterns and concepts of the Air Force and Navy for
possible application to the Army organization.
h. Consider both the feasibility and desirability of obtaining staff and command
comments on the substantive provisions of the proposed reorganization.
7. Deliverables
a. Organizational first principles of the new command and process for
modernization.
b. Define initial operational capability and full operational capability for the new
command.
c. Define the boards, cell, and meetings for ACOM and DRU participation and a
battle rhythm that sustains momentum.
d. Develop the table of distribution and allowance structure for the new command.
e. Produce recommended roles, missions, functions, authorities, activities, and
processes of the new command considering existing law and proposing legislative
changes if necessary.
f. Define the criteria for military value analysis of potential future location of the new
command.
g. Provide potential legislative changes for submission in the fiscal year 2019
National Defense Authorization Act or earlier legislation.
h. Develop recommendations to redefine the roles, functions, authorities, structure,
organization, and resources of HQDA, ACOMs, and DRUs to improve Army
modernization processes. 

Read More