A Technology Program Gate Review (TPGR) is a formal review with two parts. The first is a Technology Maturity Assessment by a review panel which assesses the TRL level of the project, and the second is a Technology Advancement Assessment by the Decision Authority to assess the value of the project to decide whether to continue or abandon the project.

TPGRs are designed to help:

• Ensure that the technology developer is pursuing the most meaningful technology paths to produce solutions that improve existing capabilities and provide tactical advantage to the Warfighter, fill an operational deficiency (capability gap), prevent duplication among collaborating agencies, and effectively and efficiently utilize limited resources.
• Evaluate the specific technology management strategy to identify gaps where stage activities failed to produce the systems engineering products needed to gain sufficient insight into the technology maturity.
• Examine Transition planning products for adequacy leading to the eventual delivery of the technology insertion in a Program of Record or provided to a user rep as (leave-behind) capability demonstrator.
• Review the results of the Technology Program Gate Review panel evaluation of the program’s technical progress for meeting Effectiveness, Suitability, and Performance Requirements.

Each TPGR is designed to assess the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) to ensure that adequate progress has been made in maturing the technology and that there is an adequate program plan and schedule. Additionally, the TPGR will assist in determining whether or not the program in progress will meet the customer’s needs for form, fit, and function, as well as give a clear “Go/No-Go” recommendation based on technology phase exit criteria. This Go/No-Go recommendation for continuing into the next phase of technology development is based on:

• Whether or not this technology remains a superior choice to any existing alternatives.
• Whether the next phase validation planning is sufficient to accomplish the technical performance goals.
• If the next phase funding is adequate per the Program Plan inputs (costs, facilities, etc.).
• The Project Metrics Score for Mitigated Risks, Technology Advancement Degree of Difficulty, Time to Next TRL, Cost, Time to Transition, and Requirements Traceability.

TMAs are conducted by an Independent Subject Matter Expert Panel and are essentially an analysis of Technical Maturity based on the following criteria:

• Completion of the published TRL Exit Criteria List
• Technical Evaluation of Program Phase Deliverables
• Evaluation of Validation Test Results
• Identification of Transition Partners, User Performance Requirements, and Form, Fit, and Function (if applicable)
• Panel Discussions with a PM (if needed)

After the analysis, the TPGR Review panel will provide a TRL Rating, any findings, and any recommendations.

TAAs are to determine whether or not the project should continue. Each TAA is conducted by a review panel evaluating the program’s planning efforts for the next phase as follows:

• Panel provides the decision authority with technical maturity assessment findings and recommendations.
• Ensure risks are properly identified, characterized, and that mitigation plan has been established.
• All the necessary laboratory, test, facility, or external agency needs have been planned for and considered in the next-phase (validation) planning.
• Ensure adequate funding is identified for the next phase, or adequate risk mitigation in the case of a funding shortfall.
• Address whether known sympathetic or competing technologies might impact the program at the current juncture or be addressed in the plan for the next development phase.
• Ensure that the Exit Criteria that have been identified for the next phase of development are adequate and sufficient to describe the necessary activities for achieving the next level of technology maturity.

Following a TAA, a written summary memorandum will be provided that includes:

• Go Decision w/o caveats
  • Project achieved TRL “X”
  • Authority to proceed
• Go Decision with caveats
  • Project achieved TRL “X”
  • May need to Re-do TRL based on change to requirements
  • New Transition Partner could alter Technology design and Transition Plans
  • Funding Constraint identified
• No Go Decision with Guidance/Rationale
  • Project achieved TRL “X” but now superseded
  • Tech Transfer to another Govt Agency in order
  • No Transition Partner has been identified
  • Next Phase Planning inadequate
  • New Funding constraint causes delay or cancellation