The short version: a RAD is a form the requiring activity's leadership signs to confirm that they are contracting out a service responsibly. The full name is Requirements Approval Document. The customer writes it, their boss signs it, and it comes to contracting with the rest of the requirements package. The rule lives in DAFI 63-138, not the FAR. This topic covers what goes in one, when it is required, who signs, and the reality that in an operational contracting office the CO often helps the customer build the form they were supposed to bring.
Formal version: a Requirements Approval Document (RAD) is a memo from the requiring activity that says, in effect, "We have reviewed this services requirement at the right level of our chain of command and we approve it for contracting action." It lives in DAFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services. Nothing in the FAR requires it. New COs sometimes go hunting for a RAD clause or template in the FAR and come up empty, because there isn't one. RADs are an Air Force services-side process, not a federal-wide one.
Why does this exist on services and not on supplies? Supplies are usually tied to an authorized stock level or a bill of materials. A services requirement is often somebody in a shop saying "we need five contractors to do X for a year," and the agency wants assurance that somebody senior looked at that ask before it became a contract. The RAD is that assurance, in writing, with a signature.
The RAD is the paper output of the Services Requirements Review Board (SRRB) process. DoD leadership pushed the SRRB concept because a lot of services work was getting contracted without senior visibility into whether the work was still needed, whether the scope was reasonable, or whether it should have been insourced. The SRRB makes the requirement owner defend the requirement to their own leadership before it comes to contracting.
On larger buys, the SRRB is a scheduled meeting with a panel: the requiring activity presents, functional stakeholders weigh in, and a senior leader approves or sends them back. On smaller buys, the SRRB process is usually handled on paper, with the same elements addressed in the RAD and signed by the appropriate approval authority. Either way, the nine elements covered in Section 4 below are the substance of the review.
DAFI 63-138 requires an approved RAD for services requirements at or above the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT), signed by the Requirements Approval Authority (RAA) at the applicable dollar level. The RAD has to be approved before solicitation release. Late approval is allowed only with an explanation captured in the acquisition strategy documentation, and that is not a place the acquisition team wants to end up.
A few additional triggers worth knowing:
DAFI 63-138 and the underlying SRRB guidance define the substantive elements a services requirement review has to cover. A well-built RAD addresses each of these, usually as numbered paragraphs in the memo. For a CO reading a RAD for the first time, think of these as the nine questions you are checking the document for.
| Element | What it is supposed to answer |
|---|---|
| 1. Mission Need | What outcome is the requirement trying to achieve? Why does the mission fail or suffer without it? |
| 2. Strategic Alignment | How does the requirement support the broader organizational mission, unit strategy, or higher-level priority? |
| 3. Issues and Risks | What known issues and risks, government-side and contractor-side, could affect execution? Schedule, cost, performance, workforce, security. |
| 4. Workforce Analysis | Why can this work not be done by existing military or civilian personnel? Has an insource/outsource look been done? What did it conclude? |
| 5. Relationship to Other Requirements | Does this overlap with other contracts, other units, or other service lines? Is there a bundling or consolidation angle? |
| 6. Projected Cost | What is the estimated value of the requirement across the full period of performance? How is it funded and by which appropriation? Is the funding in hand or planned? |
| 7. Prioritization | Where does this requirement rank against other services needs the organization is trying to fund this year? |
| 8. Contract and Work Functions | Does any part of the work involve inherently governmental functions, personal services, functions closely associated with inherently governmental work, or critical functions? If so, has that been addressed? |
| 9. Metrics | How will the organization measure whether the work is being done well? What does performance look like and how will it be tracked? |
Short answer: it depends on how much money is involved. The bigger the contract, the higher up the chain you go for the signature. A $200,000 custodial contract and a $200 million services contract do not get signed by the same person.
DAFI 63-138 does two things to make this concrete. First, it gives the signer a name: the Requirements Approval Authority, or RAA. That is just "the person whose signature counts for this dollar value." Second, it sorts services buys into five tiers based on dollar value and tells you the minimum rank that can sign at each tier. The DAFI calls those tiers S-CAT I through V (S-CAT is short for Services Category, but you can think of it as just "tier 1 through tier 5"). Tier I is the biggest. Tier V is the smallest tier above SAT.
Rough shape, no exact dollars (the dollar breakpoints change with DAFI updates, so always pull the current table):
What this means for a new CO when a RAD lands on the desk: look at the dollar value, look at the signer's rank, and ask "is this signature high enough for this number?" If yes, move on. If a $12M services action has a RAD signed by a flight chief, the signature is too low for the dollar value and the package goes back.
The RAD is an early-lifecycle document. It should be in place before the acquisition strategy is finalized, because the acquisition strategy depends on having an approved requirement to build a strategy around. The typical sequence on a services buy above SAT:
This sequence matters because it puts the "should we buy this at all" question in front of the "how do we buy it" question. That is the whole point of the RAD. If the order flips and contracting starts building strategy against a requirement that has not been validated, the acquisition team ends up doing work that may get unwound when the requirement finally gets reviewed.
In the systems world, services requirements typically come from a program management organization that has dedicated staff building and routing the RAD. The CO receives a clean package. That is not the world a new operational contracting officer walks into.
In an operational contracting squadron supporting a wing or installation, the "program manager" for a services requirement is often a lieutenant or NCO in the customer shop who has never built a RAD before. They may not know the RAD exists. They may know it exists and not know what goes in it. They may know what goes in it and not know who is supposed to sign it. The CO ends up being the person who teaches them, drafts template language with them, and sometimes quietly writes half the RAD in a shared document so the customer can route it for signature.
None of that is a complaint about the customer, just the normal shape of services work at an operational base. The CO has the institutional knowledge of the DAFI, the acquisition lifecycle, and the signature routing. The customer has the institutional knowledge of the mission need. Getting a good RAD out the door is a joint effort, and the CO who expects a polished RAD to appear on their desk is going to be waiting a long time.
A weak RAD is usually not wrong in a flashy way. It is just empty. Common patterns a new CO will see:
The CO does not have to rewrite a weak RAD on the spot. The CO does have to recognize it, document the concerns, and route the package back to the customer with a short explanation of what needs to be fixed before the acquisition team can move forward. A 20-minute phone call when the weak RAD first arrives saves a 20-day delay at solicitation release.
When a requirements package lands on the CO's desk for a services action above SAT, run this quick check against the RAD before touching anything else:
| Check | What good looks like |
|---|---|
| Is there a RAD at all? | Signed document, not a placeholder or a draft. |
| Dollar value on the RAD vs. the IGCE | Within reasonable alignment. Large delta means the RAD was built against a different scope. |
| Signature level matches S-CAT | Approver rank is at or above the required RAA for the dollar value under the current DAFI and supplement. |
| Date is current | Recent enough that the requirement has not materially changed since approval. |
| Nine elements addressed | Each element has real content, not boilerplate. Element 8 (contract and work functions) is especially worth a careful read. |
| Scope matches the PWS | The work described in the RAD is the same work described in the PWS or SOO, not a cousin. |
| Funding citation present | Cost section references a funding line, appropriation, or PR number. "Will be funded" without specifics is a flag. |
There is no government-wide RAD template. Formats vary across MAJCOMs, components, and local supplements. What follows is a realistic sample for a mid-value services action in an operational contracting setting. The nine DAFI 63-138 elements are numbered in the body so the CO can see where each lives.
Fictional setup: a recurring custodial services contract for a wing headquarters and four administrative annexes. The expiring contract runs out in September, the new contract needs to be in place by 1 October. Estimated total value is $4.2M across a base year and four option years, which puts the action above SAT and in the S-CAT V range where a squadron-level RAA can sign under typical delegation.
In accordance with DAFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services, I have reviewed and approve the requirement described below for contracting action. This requirement has been vetted against the Services Requirements Review Board (SRRB) elements and is within my delegated Requirements Approval Authority for this S-CAT level.
The approved requirements package, including the draft Performance Work Statement, Independent Government Cost Estimate, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, and market research summary, accompanies this document.
Walking through the sample above the way a CO would on intake:
Routing block The action type, total value, and RAA level match. Total value $4.2M, signed by an O-6 Mission Support Group Commander under S-CAT V delegation. That lines up. If the same memo was signed by a squadron CC for a $20M action, the signature would be wrong for the dollar value and the package goes back without further review.
Element 1 Mission Need Specific to the requirement. Identifies the facilities, the occupant population, and what happens if coverage lapses. Not boilerplate.
Element 3 Issues and Risks Real issues identified with real mitigations. A RAD that says "no known risks" on an expiring contract transition is a RAD that did not think about the transition.
Element 4 Workforce Analysis References the manpower document and past insource studies, not just a denial. If a CO receives a RAD that says "this cannot be done in-house" with nothing behind it, element 4 needs more work.
Element 6 Projected Cost Has a basis of estimate, identifies the appropriation, and names the PR. A RAD with a value but no funding citation is not funded, it is hoped-for.
Element 8 Contract and Work Functions This is the one a CO should read twice on any services action. The sample addresses inherently governmental, personal services, closely associated, and critical functions by name. For a custodial contract this is easy and the analysis is short. For an advisory and assistance contract, a contract management support contract, or anything that touches decision-making, the analysis has to be substantive. A one-liner denial is not an analysis.
Element 9 Metrics Mixes objective measures (cleanliness inspection score, response time) with outcome measures (valid occupant-health complaints). Not just "contractor will submit reports."