"It is critically important that product support managers (PSMs) establish product support factors early in the requirements development and acquisition process."
My office recently published the Department of Defense (DoD) Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP) Outline Version 3.0. The new revision is the first major update in five years and reflects changes in statute, policy, and guidance. Publishing the new version aligns to objective 3.1 of the Logistics and Materiel Readiness Strategic Plan to provide the acquisition workforce with updated policy and guidance. It also supports the National Defense Strategy, specifically the fourth pillar of building a resilient joint force and defense ecosystem.
It is critically important that product support managers (PSMs) establish product support factors early in the requirements development and acquisition process to achieve the most affordable, effective, and efficient weapon system capability and life-cycle management. Each program’s LCSP must document and communicate a comprehensive, resilient product support strategy that leverages the defense ecosystem, including both public and private sources of support. The LCSP embodies, but is not the same as the Product Support Strategy, which is “the overarching approach to meet sustainment requirements.” The LCSP is the “detailed product support plan, including sustainment metrics, risks, costs, and analyses used to deliver the performance-based best value strategy covering the Integrated Product Support (IPS) elements.” (From Department of Defense Instruction 5000.91, Product Support Management for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.)
In recent years, Congress clarified this distinction in statute (Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 4324, Life Cycle Management and Product Support). This statute requires an LCSP before Milestone B approval for “covered systems,” which are Acquisition Category (ACAT) I major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) and their equivalents that use the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) rapid prototyping or rapid fielding pathways. As directed in the LCSP Outline cover memo, use of the Outline is required for covered systems’ LCSPs whose approval authority is the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment. I highly recommend that ACAT IB, IC programs and below use this Outline with applicable tailoring while still including the minimum requirements as specified by policy and statute.
Expectations for Program Managers (PMs) and PSMs
So what are my expectations for LCSPs?
(1) The LCSP should clearly communicate the Product Support Strategy; a straightforward reading of the LCSP should identify the strategy for maintenance, supply, and other major elements of support. The reader should not have to hunt for the information.
(2) The LCSP should demonstrate critical thinking and enterprise considerations. The “Critical Thinking Questions” are a guide but do not have to be individually or explicitly addressed in the Outline. Enterprise considerations are those program aspects that include system of systems or like systems. For example, if the propulsion subsystem is common to other DoD platforms, what aspects of a common support strategy have been considered?
(3) The LCSP should be tailored to the needs of the program and Warfighter. The military Services have wide latitude to tailor LCSPs for ACAT IB/IC and below programs. However, even ACAT ID program LCSPs should be tailored and not viewed as a prescriptive adherence to the LCSP Outline.
(4) The LCSP should be underpinned by analyses; this supports DoDI 5000.91 tenet of data-driven strategies, and often takes the “guesswork” out of important decisions, particularly for programs in later life-cycle phases where actual data are available. However, there is still an important role for “military judgment” of the decision maker. This is akin to the principle of “best value,” which is “the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.” PMs and PSMs should arrive at data-driven, best value decisions in consultation with the Warfighter and other stakeholders.
(5) The LCSP should be informed by assessments like the Independent Logistics Assessment or Sustainment Review that identify risks, Operating and Support cost growth, and potential or planned mitigations. These formal reviews should be complemented by other ongoing assessments, including the program’s risk management process, to provide early identification and resolution of product support gaps.
(6) Finally, the LCSP should be a “living” document, not “shelfware.” The PSM should have a “dog-eared” copy of the LCSP within arm’s reach and assign an action officer to keep a running list of required updates. Waiting until the five-year point for a massive update would be much less efficient than maintaining an updated copy as changes occur.
Policy regarding the LCSP is primarily found DoDI 5000.91, Product Support Management for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework (AAF), and the individual AAF pathway DoDIs. The Overview section of the Outline includes general guidance and expectations, as well as a short paragraph regarding its application to each of the six AAF pathways.
DoDI 5000.91 prescribes procedures for PMs, PSMs, and life cycle logisticians (LCLs) to implement the AAF tenets to:
Emphasizing sustainment up front, and documenting the Product Support Strategy first in the Acquisition Strategy and later in an LCSP, are the primary ways to influence system design and support to reduce Life Cycle Costs (LCC), 70 percent of which occur in sustainment.
Data-driven decisions, also known as data-informed decisions, are by nature underpinned by analyses. For the LCSP, these are primarily the various processes within Product Support Analysis (Supportability Analysis) and the Product Support Business Case Analysis. Analysis products/outputs should directly influence sustainment and design decisions improving affordability and availability.
Tailoring product support, and the LCSP, is highly encouraged. For example, in the area of Intellectual Property (IP) and data rights, the data rights, the PM and PSM should work with IP subject-matter experts and the contracting officer to contract only for what is needed. This includes Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) and their associated Data Item Descriptions (DIDs), statement of work or performance work statement tasks, and contract clauses. The new LCSP Outline V3.0 includes a substantially revised section to document the IP strategy and plan, and links to resources to help the PM and PSM critically think through the data and license rights needed to execute the Product Support Strategy.
What Has Changed Since V2.0?
Version 3.0 differs from the previous version in that it:
Must My Program Switch to the New Format?
I recognize that programs are at various stages of system or platform life cycle. If you are a PM or PSM of an ACAT ID program without an approved LCSP, and your LCSP is not in the formal coordination cycle, you must switch to the new V3.0 format before proceeding. For some programs, this could involve a significant amount of work. If you are coming up on a milestone and time does not permit changing to the new format, seek further guidance from your Service Acquisition Executive’s office and the staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment.
ACAT IC programs and below without an approved LCSP, or whose LCSP is not in the final coordination cycle, should ensure that all minimum requirements per DoDI 5000.91 are addressed before approval. Programs already in sustainment are not required to revise their plans and conform to the format of this outline. However, PSMs should ensure that Product Support equities listed in this template are fully addressed as soon as possible but no later than the next update.
Parting Thoughts
As the Assistant Secretary for Sustainment, I appreciate the amount of work required to develop, coordinate, and prepare an LCSP. Given the importance of the LCSP as the primary program management document that governs the support of the system throughout its life cycle, it is worth the effort. If you have questions about the new Outline V3.0, please seek assistance from your Service lead or the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Product Support. I’m encouraged by the practices I’ve seen being put into place by the Services and throughout the DoD. My expectation is this new Outline will serve as a useful guide for developing and fostering effective product support planning and execution while delivering affordable readiness to our Warfighters.
Lowman is the principal staff assistant and advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense on logistics, materiel readiness, and product support. On behalf of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, he oversees the Defense Logistics Agency and Defense Microelectronics Activity as the principal Defense Department senior official. He served across the U.S. Army and the Joint Force for more than three decades. In 2021-2022, he performed the duties of Under Secretary of the Army. He enlisted as a U.S. Marine in 1984 and entered the Army Civil Service in Maintenance Management. Lowman holds an MS degree from the National War College and an MBA from Monmouth University.
The author can be contacted at Osd.pentagon.ousd-a-s.mbx.asd-sustainment@mail.mil.
To view the original article, click here.
I want to find...