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