Tech2PEO PEO Engagement Guide

MITRE Tech2PEO Initial Program Executive Office (PEO) Engagement Guidance

 

1.0 About Initial PEO Engagement Guidance

This document is going to serve as the basis for advising S&T teams how to best prepare for initial contact with a program office. Specifically, S&T teams (both gov’t and industry led teams), will do research to find the ideal acquisition program transition partners to help move their capability from R&D into procurement.

 

2.0 How to Use PEO Engagement Guidance

Use this guidance to prepare for your first engagement with potential acquisition transition stakeholders. Much of the guidance correlates with the TMaF readiness level activities. So, it is crucial that you first conduct a self-assessment of your project’s transition readiness to understand what transition-related items you still need to accomplish and ensure they are scheduled and resourced in your S&T project plan.

 

3.0 Acquisition Team Functional Stakeholder Perspectives

Before contacting a PEO, understand the acquisition program office stakeholders. A program office consists of cross-functional team members. A notional program office structure is below, showing the Program Executive Officer as the senior leader who has a portfolio of acquisitions programs each led by a Program Manager (PM). Working with the PMs to codevelop and execute the acquisition program are the Engineers, Contracting Officers, Financial Managers and Logisticians. This cross-functional team is typically referred to as, “the program office.” Your goal is to find the right program offices and contact the PM and/or Chief Engineer to discuss potential transition pathways from S&T to procurement, which require approval to be added to both the program’s technical and acquisition baselines.

 

When you meet with the program office for the first time, the PM will most likely bring representatives from the engineering, finance, and contracting functional teams. There is also a potential that the program office has a Warfighter Liaison whose mission is to assist the acquisition ecosystem with aligning the program to warfighter needs. That Liaison may also attend the meeting.

Each of these individuals will look through their respective functional roles to understand how your technology may align to the program. Sections 3.1 to 3.5 of this guidance help you understand their perspectives and the potential questions they may ask to best understand the opportunities and risks associated with integrating your project into their acquisition program.

At first glance, the listed areas of interest and questions may seem arduous, overwhelming, and even repetitive. There is no expectation that you, as the S&T team with limited DoD Defense Acquisition System (DAS) experience, limited time, and limited resources, should understand, let alone have all the answers to these questions for the first meeting. In fact, many of them are self-reflecting questions that the program office team will need to answer if your project is selected for transition into their portfolio.

For the first meeting, keep the discussion high level – tell your technology’s story, share what you have done to date, what your way ahead plan is, and why you think this is the right program office transition partnership to deliver your technology to the warfighter.

 

3.1 The Program Manager (PM)

As defined in the DAU Glossary, the PM is the designated individual with responsibility for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, and sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs. The PM shall be accountable for credible cost, schedule, and performance reporting to the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA).i

 

3.1.1 What the S&T Team Should Bring to the First Meeting for the PM

  • Clear Technology Description: A concise explanation of the technology, its purpose, and capabilities, as well as target users.
  • Requirements Alignment: A summary of the technology’s alignment to operational requirements and/or the acquisition program explaining why this program office is the right transition partner.
  • Operational Use Cases: Examples or scenarios showing how the technology addresses mission gaps or enhances capabilities.
  • Warfighter Engagement: Examples of Warfighter participation in the S&T development, testing, experimentation, and/or exercises.
  • Testing and Validation Results: Any available performance data from testing, demonstrations, experimentation, and/or exercise participation.
  • Current Transition Readiness Status: Documentation of the technology’s current TMaF transition readiness level.
  • Transition Readiness Roadmap: A visual or written roadmap outlining steps, timelines, milestones, and dependencies to mature TMaF levels.
  • Integration Plan: A high-level explanation of how the technology fits into existing systems and operational frameworks.
  • Initial Transition Strategy: List of key considerations for milestones, funding, and stakeholder engagement for moving the technology from S&T into procurement.
  • Cost Estimates: Rough estimates for development and integration.
  • Risk Identification: A summary of key technical, schedule, and cost risks (bonus point for proposed mitigation strategies).
  • Sustainment: Initial thoughts on training, logistics, and maintenance.

3.1.2 PM Key Areas of Interest

  • Requirements: Documentation about what the capability needs to do.
  • Warfighter: Understand who we are acquiring the capability for.
  • Program Maturity: Assessing maturity of the various aspects of the program.
  • Cost/Schedule: Identify how much time and money we’ll commit.
  • Risks: Assessing likelihood and impact of bad things happening. Identifying technical, schedule, and cost risks and ensuring mitigation strategies are in place.
  • Alignment with Program Goals: Ensuring the technology supports the program’s mission objectives and operational requirements.
  • Cost and Budget Impact: Understanding the financial implications of adopting the technology, including development, integration, and sustainment costs.
  • Schedule and Timelines: Assessing whether the technology can be integrated within the program’s schedule and milestones.
  • Testing and Validation: Ensuring the technology has been rigorously tested and validated for operational use.
  • Integration Feasibility: Evaluating how the technology fits into the program’s existing systems and architecture.
  • Stakeholder Buy-In: Ensuring warfighters, senior leadership, and other stakeholders support the technology’s adoption.
  • Scalability and Future Growth: Assessing whether the technology can evolve to meet future mission requirements.
  • Transition Strategy: Ensuring a clear plan exists for moving the technology from development to acquisition and deployment.
  • Sustainment and Lifecycle Support: Understanding long-term sustainment requirements, including maintenance, training, and logistics.

 

3.1.3 Potential Initial PM Questions

  • Do you have a plan for transitioning this technology from development to acquisition? Are there clear milestones, funding mechanisms, and stakeholder engagement strategies in place?
  • Who is your sponsor? Do you have any letters of support?
  • What requirement(s) does your capability address? Where / how are those requirement(s) documented?
  • Describe the mission capability gap and/or opportunities?
  • What timeline are you working towards?
  • How does this technology align with the program’s mission objectives and address current operational gaps?
  • How is this going to impact my current project?
  • What does the risk profile look like?
  • What risks are you introducing to the project’s cost/schedule/performance?
  • How big is the integration effort?
  • What is the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and what steps are required to mature the technology for acquisition and deployment?
  • Do you have cost estimates for development and integration?
  • What testing and validation have been conducted to ensure the technology performs as expected in lab and operational environments?
  • Is this technology scalable or adaptable to future mission requirements? Can it be upgraded or expanded without significant redesigns?
  • Have you considered a pathway for transitioning this technology into the program?

 

3.2 The Chief Engineer (CE) and/or Innovation Officer

3.2.1 What the S&T Team Should Bring to the First Meeting for the CE

  • Data, reports, or summaries of any testing, evaluations, or experiments conducted to validate the technology’s performance in relevant environments.
  • Preliminary information on how the project technology can integrate with existing systems, platforms, and infrastructure, as well as sustainment requirements (e.g., training, maintenance, logistics).

 

3.2.2 CE Key Areas of Interest

  • System compatibility and integration.
  • Technical maturity and readiness.
  • Performance and Mission Effectiveness.
  • Risk Management.
  • Test and Validation.
  • Compliance with standards/regulations.
  • Supply Chain.
  • Scalability.
  • Documentation and Configuration Management.

 

3.2.3 Potential Initial CE Questions

  • Have you participated in any exercises, experiments, etc.?
  • What M&S do you have?
  • Have you done Mission Engineering?
  • How does this prototype scale?
  • What is the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of this solution, and what testing or validation has been conducted to demonstrate its performance in relevant environments?
  • How does this technology interface with existing systems, platforms, and subsystems? Are there any anticipated challenges with integration into the current system architecture?
  • How does this technology enhance system performance or address current operational gaps? What are the measurable benefits compared to existing solutions?
  • What are the key technical, schedule, and cost risks associated with integrating this technology, and what mitigation strategies are in place to address them?
  • What testing has been conducted to validate the technology’s reliability, durability, and performance under operational conditions? Are there plans for additional testing at the system level?
  • Does this technology comply with all relevant military standards (MIL-STDs), cybersecurity requirements, and environmental regulations? Are there any gaps that need to be addressed?
  • Is this technology scalable or adaptable to future mission requirements? Can it be upgraded or expanded without significant redesigns to the system?

 

3.3 The Financial Manager

3.3.1 What the S&T Team Should Bring to the First Meeting for the FM

  • Understanding of the developmental sunk cost broken out by labor, material by life cycle, to discuss cost drivers of integration into a program such as:
    • Prototype cost, number of units.
    • Test requirements.
    • Lead-time for parts and assembly.
  • Detailed cost estimates for development, integration, sustainment, and lifecycle support.
  • Breakdown of costs by phase (e.g., R&D, production, sustainment) and funding sources (e.g., RDT&E, procurement, O&M).
  • Historical cost data or analogous program comparisons to validate cost estimates.
  • Risk assessment for cost overruns and mitigation strategies.
  • Return on Investment (ROI) analysis, including operational benefits versus cost.
  • Funding requirements and timelines, including projected annual expenditures.
  • Cost drivers and assumptions used in the cost estimate (e.g., labor, materials, testing).
  • Sustainment cost projections, including maintenance, logistics, and training.
  • Transition strategy with financial implications for moving the technology into acquisition.
  • Information on potential cost savings or efficiencies compared to existing solutions.

 

3.3.2 FM Key Areas of Interest

  • Affordability for schedule impact, test and integration cost (to assess PPBE impacts for Program Office).
  • Lifecycle impacts on training and implementation, logistics, O&M (collect the inputs to update budget estimates for POM inputs).
  • Align maturity with strategy to field – (assess options to mature technology with users through incremental fielding – and align to an acquisition path like MTA).
  • Cost Estimates: Ensuring the cost estimates are accurate, well-documented, and based on realistic assumptions.
  • Funding Sources: Understanding available funding streams and whether the technology fits within the program’s budget.
  • Lifecycle Costs: Evaluating the total cost of ownership, including development, production, sustainment, and disposal.
  • Cost Risks: Identifying potential cost overruns and ensuring mitigation strategies are in place.
  • Affordability: Assessing whether the technology is affordable within the program’s financial constraints.
  • Cost Drivers: Understanding the primary factors influencing costs and opportunities to reduce them.
  • Return on Investment (ROI): Evaluating the operational benefits of the technology relative to its cost.
  • Budget Alignment: Ensuring the technology’s funding requirements align with the program’s budget cycle and priorities.
  • Financial Transparency: Ensuring cost estimates are transparent and traceable to credible data sources.
  • Compliance: Verifying adherence to financial regulations, policies, and reporting requirements.

 

3.3.3 Potential Initial FM Questions

  • Describe vendor and market conditions for your technology?
  • Have you conducted a Return on Investment (ROI) analysis to demonstrate the operational benefits relative to the cost?
  • Can you discuss the key elements to understand – Cost Benefits and ROI
    • Describe the quantifiable benefits of integrating and using the technology. (cost savings, efficiency gains)
    • Describe the qualitative benefits of integrating and using the technology. improved user experience, compliance
  • What are the estimated costs for development, integration, and sustainment of this technology? How does it compare to alternative solutions in terms of affordability?
  • What are the primary cost drivers for this technology, and are there opportunities to reduce costs or improve efficiency?
  • What assumptions were used in the cost estimate, and how were they validated?
  • Are there any sustainment cost considerations, such as maintenance, logistics, or training, that could impact long-term affordability?
  • How does the total lifecycle cost of this technology compare to existing solutions or alternatives?
  • What is the projected annual funding requirement for this technology, and how does it align with the program’s budget cycle?
  • Have you considered the costs for development, integration, sustainment, and lifecycle support, and how these estimates were derived?
  • What funding sources or mechanisms are available to support this technology, and how do they align with the program’s budget?
  • What risks have been identified for cost overruns, and what mitigation strategies are in place to address them?

 

3.4 The Contracting Officer (CO)

The CO (or KO) is the person with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts. COs hold a warrant that allows them to negotiate on behalf of the government and are the only government officials authorized to bind the federal government to a contract. COs advise programs on business strategies (e.g., contract vehicles, contract type/s, data rights requirements) best suited to satisfy the program’s requirements and provide capability to the end user/warfighter.

 

3.4.1 What the S&T Team Should Bring to the First Meeting for the CO

  • A clear description of the technology, including its purpose, capabilities, and operational benefits.
  • Information on custom development or a modified COTS solution. If modified COTS, be prepared to discuss other potential solutions in the marketplace and how/why this solution was selected.
  • Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and a notional roadmap for maturing the technology to acquisition readiness.
  • Initial cost estimates for development, integration, sustainment, and lifecycle support.
  • Thoughts on potential contracting strategies (e.g., Other Transaction Authority (OTA), FAR-based contracts)
  • Identification of potential funding sources and mechanisms (e.g., RDT&E funding DER, APFIT funds, program office budgets).
  • Documentation of any prior testing, validation, and performance results.
  • Initial risk assessment, including technical, schedule, and cost risks, along with mitigation strategies.
  • Information on any intellectual property (IP) rights, patents, and licensing agreements that may be needed or are customary in the commercial marketplace, if applicable.
  • A plan to comply with regulatory requirements, including cybersecurity, environmental, and MIL-STDs.
  • A plan for industry engagement or market research, if applicable.

 

3.4.2 CO Key Areas of Interest for Discussion

This information will be needed to inform future transition efforts. Specific details are not necessary for the initial meeting.

  • Contracting Strategy: Selecting the best contracting mechanism (e.g., FAR contract OT agreement) and contract type (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus, hybrid) to acquire the technology
  • Cost and Funding: Understanding cost estimates, funding sources, and affordability within the program’s budget.
  • Data Rights and Intellectual Property (IP): Ensuring data rights and IP are clearly defined and do not hinder future use or sustainment.
  • Regulatory Compliance: Verifying adherence to acquisition policies, cybersecurity requirements, and environmental regulations.
  • Market Research: Assessing whether industry engagement or competition is required to identify potential vendors or solutions.
  • Risk Management: Evaluating risks related to cost, schedule, and performance, and ensuring they are accounted for in the contracting strategy.
  • Performance Metrics: Ensuring clear deliverables, milestones, and metrics are defined for contract execution.
  • Small Business Participation: Determining if the technology or contracting strategy supports small business participation goals.
  • Transition Plan: Understanding how the technology will move from development to acquisition and deployment.

 

3.4.3 Potential Initial CO Questions

  • Is there an estimated cost for development, integration, and sustainment of this technology? If so, how was this estimate derived? If not, this will be needed for transition.
  • Have you identified any funding sources or mechanisms that may be available to support this technology’s transition into an acquisition program?
  • What contracting strategy are you considering for the S&T development? For example, leveraging a competitive Prototype OT provides a path to a follow-on OT or FAR contract without the need to recompete.
  • Are there any data rights or intellectual property (IP) considerations, such as patents or licensing agreements, that need to be addressed?
  • Does this technology comply with all relevant acquisition regulations, cybersecurity requirements, and environmental standards? What is the strategy to address compliance with relevant regulations (e.g., cybersecurity, environmental)
  • What risks have been identified for cost, schedule, and performance, and how will these be mitigated in the contracting process?
  • Have you done any industry engagement or market research to identify potential vendors or solutions for this technology? If so, what? If not, are there any plans to do so?
  • Will there be any key deliverables, milestones, and performance metrics that should be included in the contract to ensure accountability? If known, what are they?
  • Does this technology support small business participation goals, or are there opportunities for subcontracting with small businesses? Is this technology available from small or innovative firms?
  • What is the plan for transitioning this technology from development to acquisition?

 

3.5 The Warfighter Liaison

3.5.1 What the S&T Team Should Bring to the First Meeting for the Warfighter Liaison

  • A presentation that explains the technology in simple, non-technical terms, focusing on its purpose, capabilities, and potential benefits to the warfighter
  • A physical prototype, a virtual simulation, or a video demonstration of the technology in action
  • Specific examples or scenarios showing how the technology can be applied in the warfighter’s mission environment (include diagrams, charts, or vignettes to illustrate these use cases)
  • A plan for how the S&T team will incorporate warfighter feedback into the development process, including opportunities for hands-on testing, user evaluations, and iterative improvements

 

3.5.2 Warfighter Liaison Key Areas of Interest

  • Operational Relevance and Mission Fit
  • Maturity and Readiness Level
  • Integration and Interoperability
  • Sustainment and Lifecycle Support
  • Testing, Validation, and Feedback

 

3.5.3 Potential Initial Warfighter Liaison Questions

  • How does this technology directly address current operational gaps or enhance mission effectiveness in real-world scenarios? Can you provide examples or use cases that demonstrate its value in the field? (Purpose: This question ensures the technology aligns with mission needs and validates its relevance to warfighter requirements. It helps the warfighter understand how the solution fits into their operational environment.)
  • What is the current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of this solution, and what steps are needed to reach a TRL suitable for acquisition and deployment? Are there any critical risks or dependencies? (Purpose: Understanding the TRL helps assess how close the technology is to being operationally viable and identifies potential hurdles in transitioning from development to acquisition.)
  • How does this technology integrate with existing systems, platforms, and infrastructure? Are there compatibility issues or additional requirements for successful deployment? (Purpose: Warfighters need to know if the solution can seamlessly integrate into their current systems or if significant modifications are required, which could impact cost and timelines.)
  • What are the sustainment requirements for this technology, including maintenance, training, and logistics? How does it impact the overall lifecycle cost compared to existing solutions? (Purpose: This question addresses long-term considerations such as maintenance, training, and cost, which are critical for acquisition decisions and operational sustainability.)
  • What testing and validation have been conducted to ensure the technology performs as expected in operational environments? Is there a process for incorporating warfighter feedback into future iterations? (Purpose: This ensures the technology has been rigorously tested and validated for real-world use and highlights opportunities for warfighters to provide input to refine the solution.)

 

i Defense Acquisition University. (n.d.). Program manager. DAU Glossary. Retrieved October 3, 2023, from https://www.dau.edu/glossary/program-manager

Share This