Transcript Service Presentation title

eDEP Contractual aspects


Mohamed ELLEJMI
June 2008
European
Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
1
Contents





2
Previous Contract
Current contract
2008 developments
Budget
Processes
Previous Contract

eDEP Core contract (2006 – 2007)

Maintenance service (EEC/RIF funded : 89K/2007 and 62k/2006)

RIF/EEC sponsored developments (EEC/RIF funded : 248K/2007 and
114k/2006)
APT sponsored developments (paid for by APT : 215K/2007 and 62K/2006)
AVT sponsored developments (paid for by AVT : 22K in 2007 and 5k in 2006)
STORIA included in this contract





“MTV” separate Contract TRS A14-2005 (197K in 2006/2007)
Private treaty for the ITWP connection to TwoSim 3D simulator (94K
in 2007)

3
2006/2007 : investment of 1 million for three projects
EEC/RIF Contract

Maintenance Service

1st Level support service


Ad-hoc tasks
Setting up demos, experiments
Investigating issues on-site

 2nd Level






4
Bug fixing in previously released software
delivery service


support service
Actually only 3 deliveries per year
Fixed price
Merging of all development lines, non-regression testing, correction of
found bugs (due to the developments)
Delivery on-site into CM Synergy
Maintenance Report (delivery contents, test results)
Perfective maintenance
Current Contract

EEC/RIF




CNS


5
Integrated Tower Position (Stephane Dubisson)
FASTI


AVT project (Leo Van der Hoorn)
APT


ESCAPE: AEG/TCT/STORIA
Perfective Maintenance
Support
TCT and FASTI Demonstrator (Chris Brain, Bogdan Petricel,
Christopher Costelloe)
EHQ/DAS

CIMACT (Alain Fowler, Jan Scholz)
What’s New in 2008

Maintenance Improvement:



Perfective Maintenance




6
Simplification of test documentation and alignment with eDEP SRD
Automated test
TCT in ESCAPE
New eDEP Launching interface
Map editor
PWP development
Budget 2008/2009

For 2008:
Maintenance: 108k
 ERS : 146K
 CIMACT: 136 K
 AVT: 11k
 APT: 150k
 FASTI: 120k
 RST ?
 Total 671K+ ? for 2008


7
For 2009: need to raise a new contract
Development Process

All developments have a Work Plan. The work plan defines







8
The requirement
The proposed architecture changes
The test strategy
Detailed design issues if needed
Proposed documentation updates
Developments fit in with the client need and client timescales
(need to be flexible and client oriented)
merges parallel development lines as needed during the
delivery to EEC
Configuration Management

Master database (in Graffica premises at Malvern




Backup database in EEC/RIF Configuration Management (CM
Synergy)


9
CVS based
Bretigny developers use this Malvern database (via remote link)
Perfectly integrated into Eclipse
Re-synchronised every 4 months as part of delivery process
One exception : AEG (ACE eDEP Gateway) – which is developed under
Configuration Management CM Synergy
Contract Concepts

EEC/RIF contracts are based upon the “Phased Tasking”
model

Tasks are broken down into 3 categories



10
Initial Tasks
Optional Tasks
Future Tasks
Contract Concepts

Initial Tasks




Optional tasks




11
EUROCONTROL provides a detailed task specification
Bidders provide a fixed, non-reversible price
Task is implicitly ordered at contract signature
EUROCONTROL provides a detailed task specification
Bidders provide a fixed, non-reversible price
Task is not implicitly ordered at contract signature.
EUROCONTROL at some point during the contract may raise this task
(no change to specification, no change to price)
Contract Concepts

Future Tasks



EUROCONTROL provides a rough outline of the task
EUROCONTROL provides guidance and/or historical data
Bidder provides





12
A Cost envelope for the future task
A Costing Model for the future task
Task is not implicitly ordered at contract signature.
During the contract, EUROCONTROL may raise the task, providing at
that moment a detailed task specification
The supplier analyses the detailed specification, and calculates a fixed
non-reversible price, using the previously agreed costing model
Contract Concepts

Future Tasks : Cost Envelope





13
Bidders estimate a cost envelope (with some margin) to cover this task
Given the EUROCONTROL task definition is “rough” then obviously the
bidder cost envelope is “rough”
Estimating a large cost envelope is not necessarily bad
(the costing model is more important)
For a bid, all the future task cost envelopes are added-up to give a total
contract envelope. This is considered as the “potential to spend”
2008/2009 Envelope: 989 K€
Contract Concepts

Future Tasks : Costing Model



The Costing Model explains how the supplier shall compute the real
cost of a future task, once EUROCONTROL provides a real and
detailed specification
Costing models vary from simple to complex.
Typically, a complex costing model defines




14
Effort profiles : e.g. a typical s/w development would be
12% Design+TestPlan, 30% development, 10% test, 20% support to
Integration,…
Overheads : e.g. 10% project management overhead, 4% Quality
Staff Profiles /Costs:
Project Manager (620€/day), Senior Engineer(560€/d), Junior
Engineer(520€/d)
Effort/Staff relationship:
e.g. 80% of Design/Test is done by Senior Engineer
Contract Execution

The contract is signed for a

Committed amount


Total of Initial Tasks (ordered implicitly at contract start)
Maximum Contract value which is



Total of initial tasks
Total of optional tasks
Total of future tasks
Initial Task 1
Optional Task 2
Future Task 3
Future Task 4
Future Task 5
15
Contract Execution

During the contract, Optional tasks may be activated



No change to specification
No change to price.
Committed contract value increases, remaining within the overall
maximum amount.
Initial Task 1
Optional Task 2
Future Task 3
Future Task 4
Future Task 5
16
Contract Execution

During the contract, Future tasks may be activated





EUROCONTROL provides a detailed specification
Supplier provides a technical response
Once approved, supplier provides a financial response (using the Costing Model)
The real cost may vary from the original “guess” given in the CFT response (this is
natural)
However, the new committed contract value must remain within the overall contract
maximum value.
Initial Task 1
Optional Task 2
Future Task 3
Future Task 4
Future Task 5
17
18
Core code sharing






19
AVT
ITWP
CIMACT
LARA
FASTI
Core
90% core
30% core
80% core
30% core
90% core
100% core