- 1 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Department of Homeland Security
DHS Directives System
Instruction Number: 102-01-103
Revision Number: 00
Issue Date: 11/05/2015
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING LIFE
CYCLE
I. Purpose
This Instruction establishes a common Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC)
Framework for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and supports efficient and
effective delivery of DHS investment capabilities. The SELC Framework supports the
Acquisition Lifecycle Framework (ALF) established in Directive 102-01.
The Instruction is designed to ensure appropriate activities are planned and implemented
throughout the life cycle and is based on several key concepts:
A. This Instruction establishes nine major SELC activities (Solution Engineering,
Planning, Requirements Definition, Design, Development, Integration and Test,
Implementation, Operations and Maintenance, and Disposition) as the baseline
SELC Framework.
B. The SELC incorporates technical reviews based on pre-defined exit criteria
to assess progress and quality of the preceding activities. The scope, content, and
schedule of the technical reviews may vary based on the chosen development
methodology.
C. Program/project managers (PM) are responsible for tailoring to the
requirements of the Department, Component, and their project’s specific
characteristics. Tailoring the implementation of the SELC to a project’s unique
characteristics (e.g., size, scope, complexity, risk, and security categorization) and
development methodology is expected.
Note: Best practices for development change and evolve, and the SELC is meant to
encourage programs to make use of contemporary approaches. The SELC represents a
framework and a common language for SELC activities, but may be tailored to support
emerging practices.
The SELC Guidebook implements this Instruction and includes details regarding
processes, technical reviews, tailoring, SELC artifacts, and similar content.
- 2 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
II. Scope
This Instruction is applicable to all DHS programs, projects, or equivalent investments
throughout Components or other DHS organizations whose purpose is to deliver a DHS
capability.
This Instruction does not supersede other Directives/Instructions beyond its topic area,
substitute for such Directives or Instructions, or provide alternatives to these Instructions
unless specifically stated for unique cases.
The accompanying SELC Guidebook is developed and maintained within the confines of
this Instruction and is subject to it and all other applicable Department Directives and
Instructions.
Interpretation requests, recommendations, or issues with this Instruction or any associated
guidebooks or manuals should be directed to the Office of Program Accountability and
Risk Management (PARM). Change requests are adjudicated with the assistance of the
Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the Science & Technology Directorate.
III. References
A. Directive 102-01 and its implementing Instructions.
B. Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
C. Title 48, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Chapter 30, “Department of
Homeland Security, Homeland Security Acquisition Regulation (HSAR)”
IV. Definitions
Definitions used in this Instruction or any associated guidebooks or manuals align with and
conform to overall Directive 102-01 definition policy, or state they are provided only to aid
in document understanding and do not establish policy. Definition clarification,
misalignment, or recommendations for specific definitions to be applied across the
Directive 102-01 implementing instructions or any associated guidebooks or manuals
should be directed to PARM for interpretation, adjudication, or modification, as appropriate.
V. Responsibilities
Responsibilities applicable to this instruction include:
- 3 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
A. The DHS Chief Information Officer (CIO) is responsible for ensuring that
Information Technology (IT) Investments are aligned with Department and
Component Strategy and Missions. Relative to the SELC, the CIO reviews and
approves (with the Executive Director, PARM) the program/project SELC Tailoring
Plan.
B. The Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) is
within the Under Secretary for Management (MGMT) Directorate. PARM serves as
the Management Directorate’s executive office for acquisition policy, governance,
and oversight. Relative to the SELC, PARM:
1. Reviews and approves (with the CIO) the Program/Project’s SELC
Tailoring Plan;
2. Assists programs/projects with understanding the purpose and
intended outcomes of the SELC technical reviews;
3. Advises the Component Systems Engineer (SE), if required, on the
conduct of SELC technical reviews as well as providing feedback and issues
as part of the technical reviews.
4. Assists programs, as required, with their SELC tailoring.
C. The Enterprise Business Management Office (EBMO) is within the Office
of the CIO. EBMO evaluates IT programs and provides recommendations to the
DHS CIO that focus on aligned investment, sound technical approach, and
enterprise architecture. Relative to the SELC, EBMO:
1. Provides assistance, as required, to the programs with their SELC
tailoring;
2. Supports the DHS CIO in the review of the program/project’s SELC
Tailoring Plan and provides recommendation on its disposition;
3. Provides assistance to the IT programs with understanding the
purpose and intended outcomes of the SELC technical reviews;
4. Advises the Component CIO, if required, on the SELC technical
reviews as well as providing feedback and issues as part of the technical
reviews.
D. The Component Acquisition Executive (CAE) is the senior acquisition
official within a Component that is responsible for implementation, management,
and oversight of the Component’s acquisition processes. Relative to the SELC, the
CAE:
- 4 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
1. Designates a Component SE or equivalent if there is none;
2. Approves the program/project SELC Tailoring Plan at the Component
level;
3. Ensures, with support from the Lead Technical Authority, that
processes are established that enable SELC technical reviews and that they
are adhered to by programs/projects;
4. Ensures the Component has adequate functional lines of business
(e.g., Systems Engineering, Logistics, etc.) and that they support the
program/project SELC technical reviews;
5. Ensures the SELC Technical Review Completion Letter, along with
any updates to the SELC Tailoring Plan or Project Management Plan, is
submitted by the program/project to the DHS program reporting system of
record within 30 days of the technical review completion.
E. The Program/Project Manager (PM) is responsible, with significant
discretionary authority, for tailoring the SELC process for the program’s/project’s
specific characteristics. The PM:
1. Establishes the program/project team;
2. Determines, with approval of the Lead Technical Authority and CAE,
the development methodology and tailors appropriately;
3. Completes the tailored artifact set;
4. Presents the business case and status of the program/project through
all phases of the technical review and approval process;
5. Schedules, conducts, and coordinates the SELC technical reviews;
6. Documents the outcomes of completed SELC technical reviews in
Completion Letters;
7. Manages the performance of the program/project throughout the life
cycle.
F. The Operational Test Agent (OTA) is responsible for conducting
Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E) and assesses operational effectiveness
and suitability. The OTA plans, conducts, evaluates, and reports the results of
independent OT&E to the PM, DHS Director of OT&E, and Acquisition Decision
Authority.
- 5 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
G. The Lead Technical Authority (LTA) is responsible for the technical (e.g.,
Systems Engineering and domain-specific engineering) aspects of the
program/project. The LTA is the empowered individual within the Component to
represent agency-wide technical considerations and make recommendations to the
program/project manager and CAE or Component Head. The LTA for IT
programs/projects is the Component CIO. For non-IT programs/projects, the LTA is
recommended to be the Component Systems Engineer (SE) or equivalent, as
designated by the CAE or Component Head. The LTA:
1. Concurs with the program/project SELC Tailoring Plan;
2. Supports the CAE to ensure processes are established that enable
SELC technical reviews and that they are adhered to by programs/projects;
3. Ensures that all SELC technical review exit criteria are satisfied;
4. Ensures the necessary SELC activities have been satisfactorily
completed as planned;
5. Concurs with the SELC Technical Review Completion Letter.
H. The Component SE (functioning as Lead Technical Authority for non-IT
Programs/Projects) is responsible for the Component’s overall Systems
Engineering. Systems Engineering is defined as an interdisciplinary approach and
means to enable the realization of successful systems. Systems Engineering
considers both the business and the technical needs of all customers with the goal
of providing a quality product that meets the user needs. If the Component does not
have a dedicated SE, then the organization (external to the Program Management
Offices) with responsibilities closest to the definitions above should be substituted
and so designated by the Component Acquisition Executive (CAE). For non-IT
programs and projects, the Component SE is also the Lead Technical Authority with
responsibilities defined in the LTA section above.
I. The Component CIO (functioning as Lead Technical Authority for IT
Programs and Projects) is responsible for exercising leadership and authority over
mission-unique IT policies, programs, services, solutions, and resources. The
Component CIO acts to implement the policies of the DHS CIO in accordance with
the unique needs of the Component. This includes ensuring IT programs/projects
comply or are aligned with the DHS SELC, and establishing an SELC-aligned
development lifecycle for Component level IT investments. In the case of IT
programs/projects, the Component CIO is the Lead Technical Authority with
responsibilities defined in the LTA section above.
- 6 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
J. The Lead Business (Operational) Authority (LBA) represents the
user/operational community throughout the acquisition and development of the
solution. The LBA provides continual feedback to the program/project on behalf of
the user community and the operational requirements developers to ensure the
requirements and guidance accurately reflect the needs of the users. The LBA is
recognized and empowered by the Component Head to speak for the user
community. Similar to the LTA, the LBA is also responsible for ensuring that event-
based technical review exit criteria and necessary activities are satisfied as well as
concurring with the Technical Review Completion Letter.
VI. Content and Procedures
A. DHS SELC Framework:
The Systems Engineering Life Cycle Framework for DHS supports efficient and
effective delivery of DHS investment capabilities and has been developed to be
compliant with applicable federal regulations, laws, and policies.
The first major SELC activity focuses on the broader acquisition program and the
remaining major SELC activities focus on projects and systems associated with the
program. The framework consists of nine major SELC activities and a set of
technical reviews that are intended to ensure that the development effort is
progressing satisfactorily and meeting the business need.
Note: Although the SELC framework is routinely depicted sequentially, the SELC is
development methodology neutral, and its activities may be conducted concurrently,
in parallel, or sequentially, with multiple feedback loops and iterations, as
appropriate. SELC activities and technical reviews may also be combined, modified,
or omitted based on a program’s specific characteristics and selected development
methodology. Best practices change and evolve, and programs are encouraged to
learn and adopt new practices that are in the government’s best interests. For
example, the SELC encourages IT programs to use best practices such as agile
approaches (i.e. Scrum, Lean Software Development, Kanban, Continuous
Delivery, etc.) intended to streamline processes, reduce costs, and provide the best
fit to mission needs. The philosophy of the SELC is to encourage tailoring for
specific engineering needs and accommodate all development methodologies.
B. DHS SELC Framework Components & Procedures:
This section presents general information on the SELC Framework Components
and Procedures as a preface to the detailed information on each of the major DHS
SELC activities contained in the SELC Guidebook.
- 7 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
1. SELC Entry Criteria
The Component user operational community assisted by the PM (if
established) establishes a baseline of its mission operational needs by
assessing their existing operational capabilities prior to initiating the SELC.
Clearly defined operational capability gaps are identified by determining
mission risks/vulnerabilities from assessing potential threats, characterizing
the mission standards and conditions necessary to minimize or reduce risks.
In addition to assisting in defining the operational capability gap(s), the PM
initiates acquisition planning, which defines the program’s/project’s Systems
Engineering activities, cost, and schedule for developing the new capabilities
to close the defined gap(s).
2. Major SELC Activities
The following is a short description of the objectives/purpose of each of the
nine major SELC activities and related technical reviews. While the technical
reviews described below represent conceptual types of reviews that may be
used, specific developmental methodologies employ unique reviews that
correspond to the methods and processes applicable to that methodology
and may be used if documented in the applicable SELC Tailoring Plan.
a. Solution Engineering: Conducted following the Acquisition
Decision Event (ADE) - 1 of the ALF, the objective of Solution
Engineering is to identify, analyze, and objectively select the preferred
solution alternatives via a formal Analysis of Alternatives
(AoA)/Alternatives Analysis (AA) to meet the approved mission needs.
In addition, key acquisition artifacts are created to prepare the
program to enter the Obtain Phase of the ALF.
Study Plan Review (SPR): Conducted at the overall program level for
the purpose of reviewing ground rules and assumptions as well as the
analyses plans, scope, criteria, and methods to be used for
performance of the AoA/AA.
Solution Engineering Review (SER): Conducted towards the end of
the Analyze/Select Phase of the ALF the SER evaluates the results of
the AoA/AA and the completeness and content of related acquisition
and technical artifacts to support formal program approval. The SER
directly supports the ADE-2A Acquisition Review Board (ARB).
- 8 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
b. Planning: The purpose of Planning is to create plans in the
appropriate level of detail for the chosen methodology. Facets of the
program/project are analyzed to ensure that the cost, scope, and
schedule are technically feasible and acceptable to stakeholders.
Project Planning Review (PPR): Looks at executability of
program/project schedule and scope, along with the continuity and
appropriateness of planning artifacts. The result of this review is an
assessment of readiness to proceed into development of the solution.
This review supports an ADE-2B decision.
c. Requirements Definition: The purpose of Requirements
Definition is to gather, analyze, and document requirements including
functional and non-functional performance and data requirements.
Systems Definition Review (SDR): Focuses on the value, priority,
traceability, and continuity of the functional and non-functional
requirements.
d. Design: The objective of Design is to make decisions that
transform requirements into system designs and architectures to
efficiently and effectively guide or contract for fabrication, assembly,
and coding.
Preliminary Design Review (PDR): Reviews the preliminary design to
ensure that the planned technical approach meets the requirements.
Critical Design Review (CDR): Assesses system detailed design and
its ability to meet the anticipated requirements.
e. Development: The objective of Development is to build and
begin testing the components, products, and functionality that make
up the system/solution that delivers the capability defined in the
Operational Requirements Document (ORD) and Acquisition Program
Baseline (APB).
- 9 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Integration Readiness Review (IRR): Assesses system development
efforts and subsystem, component, or configuration item testing
results to ensure the system is ready for integration and
comprehensive developmental test and evaluation (DT&E). Ensures
that DT&E planning has been completed and test planning and
infrastructure is adequate to support comprehensive DT&E. If
development is done by a single development contractor, by the
government directly, or in a highly integrated government and
contractor team, then the IRR may not be necessary or focused
primarily on DT&E preparations and readiness.
f. Integration and Test: The purpose of Integration and Test is to
integrate the configuration items that have been built and tested
during Development and to demonstrate that the integrated system
satisfies all defined requirements.
Production Readiness Review (PRR): Conducted to review the results
of Integration and Test to validate that the system developed meets
the defined requirements, and assesses system and manufacturing
readiness for the move to limited production. This review supports an
ADE-2C decision.
g. Implementation: The objective of Implementation is to prepare
the system, operational environment, organization, and users for the
intended use of the new solution and to conduct Operational Test &
Evaluation (OT&E) to evaluate whether the system meets mission
need and operational requirements.
Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR): Conducted to ensure
the program/project is ready to enter OT&E.
Operational Readiness Review (ORR): Assesses the system’s
operational effectiveness and suitability. The ORR also ensures that
the system possesses the required manufacturing and logistics
support capabilities and capacities, and is therefore ready to be
moved into production, fielding, and operation. The ORR supports an
ADE-3 decision.
h. Operations and Maintenance: The objective of Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) is to operate and maintain the system, make
minor enhancements to the system, and conduct periodic reviews
(e.g., security, system performance, obsolescence, and mission
gaps). O&M personnel monitor the current system, identify problems
to be fixed, and identify ways to improve the system.
- 10 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Post Implementation Review (PIR): Documents
deployment/implementation and coordination issues, how they were
resolved, and how they could be prevented in the future.
i. Disposition: The emphasis in Disposition is to ensure that the
system (or parts of the system), data, procedures, and documentation
are packaged and archived in an orderly fashion, making it possible to
reinstall and bring the system back to an operational status if
necessary. Disposition also includes systems that are transferred to
another entity (Foreign Military Sale, another DHS Component, etc.).
All data records are retained or disposed of in accordance with DHS
and Federal policies regarding retention of electronic records, and any
production equipment and or fixtures are permanently stored or
excessed.
3. SELC Technical Reviews
SELC technical reviews (or equivalent reviews tailored to the program or
project’s chosen development methodology) provide the opportunity to
assess program/project progress and provide a mechanism for management
to determine if and how well a program/project has completed the necessary
activities.
Technical reviews are led by the PMs for the LTA and LBA and may include
participation from DHS headquarter organizations (e.g., PARM, CIO-EBMO,
Director for Test & Evaluation, and DHS IT Portfolio Managers).
The PM is responsible for arranging, coordinating, and completing the
technical reviews while the LTA and LBA are responsible for ensuring the
project has satisfied the applicable exit criteria. However, it is expected that
the LTA and LBA rely on the appropriate experts (e.g., Enterprise Architect,
testing, security, Section 508, infrastructure, budget, operators, etc.) to
evaluate the completion of activities and compliance with exit criteria.
In the specialized case of non-IT programs/projects obtaining IT systems
(e.g., vehicle programs that include communication gear) the LTA should
include the Component CIO in the SELC technical review process. Some key
experts are identified in the lists of SELC technical review participants in the
DHS Technical Review Guide. For major (Levels 1 and 2) and non-major
(Level 3) acquisition level programs, within 30 days of completing the event-
based technical reviews, the approved Technical Review Completion Letter
along with any updates to the project's SELC Tailoring Plan or Project
Management Plan (including program/project schedule) is provided to the
DHS program reporting system of record.
- 11 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Non-major programs should follow the intent of the SELC technical review
process, but tailor the formality and size of the SELC technical reviews based
on the specific needs of the program/project.
SELC Technical Reviews can be event or time based. SELC Framework
event-based technical reviews are discussed in Section 2. Programs and
projects should not rely solely on event-based technical reviews but should
also conduct periodic time-based reviews. These periodic reviews ensure
that issues are being identified, discussed, and actions to resolve are
initiated throughout the execution of the program or project.
Some development methodologies, including methods employed in
facilities/construction projects or in Agile development projects, employ
unique reviews and processes for conducting those reviews that are specific
to those methodologies. The program may utilize these methodology specific
reviews in lieu of the technical reviews described in Section 2 provided the
SELC Tailoring Plan:
• Reflects the addition of the new reviews and removal of the
applicable reviews discussed in Section 2
• Includes a discussion describing how the intent of the reviews
being tailored out is being met by the new reviews
• Demonstrates that the objectives of the overall technical review
process are still being met
Some of these reviews may not be required to provide completion letters, or
submit them within 30 days.
Factors critical to successful technical reviews include:
a. Satisfactory completion of all preceding activities (including
required artifacts) and exit criteria, as tailored, for each technical
review.
b. Evidence is provided that clearly substantiates the fulfillment of
the exit criteria. For example, in testing requirements, tests
successfully produce the required results in order to be used as
evidence of “successfully” meeting exit criteria. The act of testing in
itself is not sufficient evidence if tests fail to produce required results.
The PM reviews any significant issues identified, assesses the impact to the
program/project, and following consultation with the LTA and LBA,
determines if the program/project is ready to proceed.
4. SELC Technical Review Exit Criteria
- 12 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Each technical review contains a minimal set of exit criteria that needs to be
satisfied. These exit criteria are included in the DHS Technical Review
Guide. Exit criteria are tailored for the specific approach and methodology of
the program/project and documented in the SELC Tailoring Plan. The CAE,
PM, Component SE, Component CIO, etc. may provide additional criteria
based on the scope/risk of the program/project or results from previous
reviews. It is critical to understand that the determination of program/project
successful completion of the review is made by evidence of satisfactory
compliance with the content of the exit criteria, not simply by the evidence of
artifacts produced.
5. SELC Artifacts
SELC artifacts (e.g., planning documents, requirements documents, test
reports, product backlogs, burndown charts, etc.) are evidence of critical
thinking and analysis, and are evaluated based on their quality,
appropriateness, and accuracy. Programs/projects develop a set of artifacts
based on the tailored approach in their SELC Tailoring Plan.
The SELC artifacts are referenced in the SELC Guidebook. In addition, other
artifacts may be used based on the program or project’s selected
development methodology.
6. SELC Tailoring
a. SELC Tailoring Concept
The DHS SELC represents the systems engineering lifecycle
framework for the acquisition management process. The flexibility of
the SELC derives from the ability to tailor based on the unique
characteristics of a project (e.g., size, scope, complexity, risk, security
categorization) and development methodology documented in the
SELC Tailoring Plan.
It is important to note that artifacts are simply the final output of a
knowledge process, and that evidence of sufficient knowledge is more
the focus of oversight than format and length of the artifacts.
Programs are encouraged to economize artifacts to best represent the
knowledge gained from their processes. The objective of tailoring is to
effectively apply the SELC Framework
1
to a specific acquisition
program and its projects while balancing the need for documentation
and technical reviews with programmatic and technical risks. Tailoring
is the cornerstone of any life cycle process. Tailoring of the SELC
Framework can take several forms and may include the following:
1
or alternate component life cycle processes aligned with the DHS SELC.
- 13 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
(1) Combining SELC major activities and/or reviews.
(2) Combining SELC artifacts and documents.
(3) Scaling the size, formality, content of SELC artifacts
and/or reviews (e.g., Agile, Modular, etc.)
(4) Incorporating additional SE processes, activities, and
artifacts not required by the SELC guidance, but needed for a
specific project, increment, or major activity.
(5) Adding or substituting new or methodology specific
technical reviews.
(6) Substituting products of similar content for SELC
artifacts.
(7) Deleting major SELC activities, technical reviews, or
artifacts where the intent is covered elsewhere, or the activity is
not required.
Note: Some documents identified in the SELC Guidebook are
required by other (i.e., not related to MD 102-01) DHS policy,
guidance, or governing authorities and may not be deleted in the
SELC Tailoring Plan without coordination with the appropriate
governing authorities.
b. SELC Tailoring Plan
SELC tailoring is applied in a manner appropriate to a
program’s/project’s size, scope, complexity, risk, security
categorization, and development methodology.
The program/project provides evidence proving successful completion
of required SELC activities whether or not the SELC is tailored. The
SELC Tailoring Plan (for IT and non-IT) is required to document the
development approach for the program/project and is developed early
during Planning, but no later than ADE-2B (Approve Supporting
Acquisitions). Tailoring for Solutions Engineering is included in the
Capability Development Plan approved at ADE-1.
- 14 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
For major programs (Level 1 and Level 2) (where not delegated), the
SELC Tailoring Plan is approved at the Department level by the
PARM Executive Director and DHS CIO not later than ADE-2B, and
any subsequent changes to it are coordinated with the original
approving authorities.
The SELC Tailoring Plan content and elements are defined in the
SELC Guidebook.
7. SELC Guidebook
The SELC Guidebook implements this Instruction by providing specific
details regarding requirements, templates, process descriptions,
documentation, technical reviews, and tailoring. It also serves as a resource
to manage lessons learned and provides a readily adaptable guide to
implement the SELC methodology. Signed concurrence of the guide and
each change is required by the DHS CIO and the Executive Director, PARM.
8. SELC Governance Roles and Responsibilities
Table 8-1 lists the recommended LTA(s) for each standard SELC technical
review based on program/project type. The overall concept for the
governance of Systems Engineering is a model whereby the PM retains
responsibility for the overall outcome of the program/project, and the
oversight stakeholders participate in the SELC technical reviews as a means
to provide the PM with inputs on technical matters to help shape the PM’s
decisions and to inform Acquisition Review Boards.
In addition to the PM, Systems Engineering governance requires the
participation of an LTA and LBA. At the completion of each standard SELC
technical review, the combined concurrence of these three stakeholders (PM,
LTA, LBA) is documented in an SELC Technical Review Completion Letter
along with the resultant actions taken during the technical review from the
other Component and Department participants as the formal record of the
SELC technical review. The LTA and LBA are assigned as part of the
program’s initiation, but not later than the first SELC technical review (e.g.,
Study Plan Review).
Other development methodologies (e.g., Agile) may use different technical
reviews and roles so long as they adhere to the general concept of each
SELC technical review and role.
- 15 -
Instruction # 102-01-003
Revision # 00
Table 8-1: DHS SELC Technical Reviews – Recommended Lead Technical Authorities
SELC Technical
Reviews
Program/Project Type
Capital Asset
Information
Technology (IT)
Capital Asset Non
IT
SPR
Component CIO
Component SE
SER
Component CIO
Component SE
PPR
Component CIO
Component SE
SDR
Component CIO
Component SE
PDR
Component CIO
Component SE
CDR
Component CIO
Component SE
IRR
Component CIO
Component SE
PRR
Component CIO
Component SE
OTRR
Component CIO and
CAE
Component SE and
CAE
ORR
Component CIO
Component SE
PIR
Component CIO and/or
LBA
As directed by CAE
9. SELC Guidebook Transition
With this Instruction’s approval, Management Directive 102-01-001 Appendix
B Version 2.0 (Interim) is canceled as a Management Directive 102-01-001
appendix. However, until this Instruction’s guidebook is developed and
approved, Appendix B Version 2.0 (Interim) remains in effect and serves as
the interim SELC Guidebook.
I. Questions
Address any questions regarding this Instruction to PARM.
