Transcript Slide 1

Headquarters U.S. Air Force
Integrity - Service - Excellence
Program Title
Air Force Review Board (AFRB) Date
This template is for guidance
and is not mandatory
See Notes Pages
for additional
information
Rank, Name
Office Symbol
Date
Updated: December 2014
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRE-DECISIONAL
1
Briefing Outline – Key Items
















BLUF
Program Description/Overview
CONOPS
Requirements
Interrelationships
MS B Affordability
 Portfolio Perspective
 APB--KPPs
 Affordability Template
 Tradeoffs
 Will Cost/Should Cost
Product Support Quad Chart
Schedule
Business Strategy
 Product ion Rate
Funding
Program Risk and Risk Mitigation
Document Status
Exit Criteria
Recommendations for ADM
Way ahead
Back-up
 Program Office Resources, Technical and Systems Engineering Assessment, Test and Eval
 Other (e.g.., open actions from previous ADMs, Congressional concerns/funding cuts, industrial base
issues, spectrum considerations, etc.)
Integrity - Service - Excellence
2
“Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)”
(Decisions Requested & Key program information)

Purpose



Decisions you are requesting (examples)





Present Way Ahead for Program
Discuss oversight and management plan for Program
Approval Milestone B (if AF is MDA)
Approval to proceed to OIPT and DAB/ITAB (if OSD is MDA)
Obtain SAE approval program re-baselined/way ahead(NunnMcCurdy) or MAIS Breach
Approve Applicable delegations/waivers
List Outstanding Issues


Issue 1--CAIG estimate is double current budget
Issue 2--TRL level 5 for one of 6 critical technologies
Integrity - Service - Excellence
3
Program Description/Overview
Description






250-lb Class, Precision Guided, Air-to-Ground Munition
Kill Mobile and Fixed Targets Through Weather from Standoff
Uses Tri-Mode Seeker & Dual-Band Data Link (Link 16 + UHF)
Services: USAF, DoN
Threshold Platforms: AF--F-15E; USMC--F-35B; USN--F-35C
IMD sensitive (for clarification see notes)




ACAT Level: ID
MDA: USD (AT&L)
PEO: AFPEO (Weapons), Maj Gen Blaster
PM: 918 ARSG/CC, Col Boomer
Schedule
Second Increment Miniature Munitions
SDB I-Fixed Targets; SDB II-Adds Movers
Required Funding
FY14 FY15
AF RDT&E
86.4 192.6
FY11 PB RDTE 126.5 153.5
AF Proc
FY11 PB Proc
DoN RDT&E
16.5
FY11 PB RDTE 43.7
DoN Proc
FY11 PB Proc
32.2
44.2
Air Force TY$M
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
Total
133.9 127.3 106.3
79.2 725.7
162.4 128.6
69.5
68.5 731.0
46.9
84.4 125.7 257.0
39.4
57.1
74.2 170.7
DoN TY$M
48.1
46.5
70.3
95.0 308.6
74.9
37.6
42.9
40.0 283.3
10.3
10.3
16.3
16.3
AF/DoN Committed to Service Cost Position
Acquisition Strategy






Evolutionary Acquisition
Competitive Risk Reduction / Source Selection
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson
The Boeing Company, St Louis
EMD-Fixed-Price Incentive Firm Target (FPI(F))
Production
 Lots 1-3 -- FPI(F)
 Lots 4-5 – Fixed-Price NTE w/ Economic Price Adjust
 Phase Verification:
 Phase I—F-15E Normal attack
 Phase II—F-15E CAM/SAL
 Phase III—F-35B and F-35C Integration
Approved 21 Sept 13
4
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS
5
Requirements

Operational Requirements
 When Approved (AOA, ICD/CDD/CPD, CONOPS)
 Key KPPs—fully identified and clearly stated?

Incremental Requirements?

All increments contained in one CDD?

EMD phase for each increment planned for 5 years or less?

How does the program baseline compare to validate requirements
 How will program achieve information assurance requirements? (see
footnotes)

Operational Capabilities/Impacts

Capabilities / missions (today & future)
 Relationship to established roadmap(s) / architecture(s)

Family of Systems (FOS) / System of Systems (SOS) /
Complementary Systems
 Example for E-10A: MP-RTIP, Global Hawk, MP-CDL
Integrity - Service - Excellence
6
Interrelationships, Dependencies and
Synchronization with Complementary
Systems
Aviation Platforms:
KC-135
KC-10
AWACS
H/MH-60
CV-22
MH-47
MH-6
CH-53
A/OA-10
Ground Teams:
GAWS
SF
SEAL
STS
HC/MC-130 Recap
Mission Planning
PFPS
JMPS
Be sure to include CYBER links and
infrastructure.
C-130J:
Indicate any issues/cybersecurity
risks
introduced by
Aircraft Procurement
program interconnection.
LAIRCM
& Block Upgrades
Solid denotes current system
Dash denotes future system
Arrow to Recap denotes supports Recap
Arrow from Recap denotes Recap supports
Indicates program are interdependent
7
No known issues affecting inter-related programs
Resolvable interface issues affecting programs
Unresolvable interface issues affecting programs
Integrity - Service - Excellence
MS B Affordability
Basic Questions:

Portfolio Related:

What adjustments are necessary to the existing portfolio to fit
this new program in?
 What price point for the program would cause reconsideration
within the portfolio?
 Program Related (Cost Capability CAP (Analysis) :

What do you (PM/PEO/CAE) think are the cost drivers in your
design and why?
 Are the largest drivers related to technical, schedule or other
factors? Is there trade space for these factors that can
influence affordability? (If not, it does not go on the chart)

If the key trades are technical, what are those elements around
which some “sweet spots” can be influenced?

Impact of procurement rate (EOQ) and schedule impact on
affordability target.
Integrity - Service - Excellence
8
All Core Functions Affordable
within Flat Budget
9
All Programs within
Core Function Affordable
10
Affordable Acquisition Program
11
APB Key Performance Parameters
Characteristic
Objective
Threshold
Demonstrated
Current Est.
MFHBA (hrs)
35
24
26.7
50.6
MMH/FH (hrs)
3.6
4.3
2.8
3.2
Cruise Speed (kts)
165
135
138
138
Payload (Hot Day) (lbs)
3500
2500
3179
3179
6
4
4
4
Why they matter. . .
AH-1Z
Weapon Stations Universal Mounts
Precision Guided Munitions
16
12
16
16
-0.5 to 2.5
-0.5 to 2.5
-0.5 to 2.79
-0.5 to 2.5
200 x 1 (Aux Fuel)
110 x 1
135nm x 1
135nm x 1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
All Top Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
MFHBA (hrs)
40.2
33.1
55.8
52.3
MMH/FH (hrs)
2.9
3.9
2.5
2.4
Cruise Speed (kts)
165
140
156
156
Payload (Hot Day) (lbs)
4500
2800
3079
3079
2 Univ. Mounts
2 Hard Mounts
2 Hard Mounts
2 Hard Mounts
-0.5 to 2.3
-0.5 to 2.3
-0.5 to 2.3
-0.5 to 2.3
200 x 1 (Aux Fuel)
110 x 1
129nm x 1
129nm x 1
Maneuverability / Agility (G's)
Mission Radius (nm)
Shipboard Compatibility
Interoperability
UH-1Y
Weapon Stations
Maneuverability / Agility (G's)
Mission Radius (nm)
Shipboard Compatibility
Interoperability
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
All Top Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
All Critical Top
Level IERs
*AH-1Z Cruise Speed revised in CPD
COLOR DEFINITIONS:
Exceeds Objective Requirement
Exceeds Threshold Requirement
At risk of not meeting Threshold
BREACH: Does not meet Threshold
12
MS B AFFORDABILITY
REQUIREMENT: NOTIONAL SYSTEM
Cost Drivers & Trade
Excursions
Proposed Affordability
Requirements
Description
Affordability
Requirement
APUC
O&S
TBD
TBD
TBD
Discussion Points:
• #1
• #2
• #3
Current Estimate
$22.6M
$24.4M
$32.9B
$35.6B
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
Description
APUC
PAUC
RDT&E
Proc.
O&S
Schedule
Impact
Original Cost
Estimate
$26.7M
$32.3M
$1.32B
$15.1B
$39.1B
N/A
- Range
Readjustment
-$0.3M
-$0.4M
+$2M
-$75M
-$100M
None
- Reliability Growth
+$2.2M
+$2.3M
+$15M
+$50M
-$1.5B
+6 Months
- Engine Redesign
-$0.7M
-$1.1M
+$4M
$-125M
$75.0M
+3 Months
IMD Signatures
-$0.8M
-$2.1M
+$5M
$-25M
$85.0M
+6 Months
- Prognostics &
Health Management
+$0.2M
$0.3M
$0.0M
$0.0M
-$2.0B
None
- F/A-XY Avionics
Reuse
-$1.9M
-$2.4M
-$16M
-$50M
+$200
M
-6 Months
- Reduced Ordnance
Load
-$1.8M
-$2.0M
+$2M
-$15M
$0.0M
None
Current Cost Estimate
$24.4M
$29.0M
$1.31B
$14.9B
$35.6B
N/A
13
The Solution
should NOT be to
draw an arrow
through this box
(like this)
SEARch out 3 dllrs
Cost/unit
$7B
$5B
$3B
Performance
14
Cost
Time
15
Should Cost Presentation Template

The Program’s “should cost” is the set of program’s initiatives or
opportunities to reduce costs below the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)
level. It is primarily the basis for a negotiating position and result for
pending contracts that will be below the ICE, but it also includes measures
taken to reduce cost beyond near term contract actions.

See AT&L guidance memos on developing should-cost targets
(https://dap.dau.mil/smart/):

“Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and
Productivity in Defense Spending,” September 14, 2010

“Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power – Obtaining Greater
Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” November 3, 2010
“Implementation of Will-Cost and Should-Cost Management,” April 22, 2011

“Should-Cost and Affordability,” August 24, 2011
 “Implementation of Should-Cost Management,” August 6, 2013


The following charts provide a “notional guide” for presenting
a summary of a program’s “should cost” plans and estimates
for various program activities; see slide notes pages for key points and
tailor format as appropriate to suit the particular initiatives of program.
Integrity - Service - Excellence
16
Should Cost Summary
$M
Total Acq Will Cost (ICE)
FY12
Budget Authority
81.6
[Current Year] PB
FY13
62.4
100.0
100.0
[Should Cost Initiative Title]
Phase 1 Test Activities
Phase 2 (Contract Award)
Flight Body-2
Streamline Training
Net Should Cost Savings
Total Should Cost Estimate
FY14
33.0
100.0
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
To
Complete
Total
1,090.7
198.4
213.5
207.9
153.7
97.3
42.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
500.0
800.0
(1.4)
(11.0)
(24.6)
(22.5)
(24.5)
(1.4)
(11.0)
(70.3)
(24.5)
(26.0)
(23.2)
(26.0)
0.0
100.0
(12.4)
87.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
(24.6)
75.4
(47.0)
53.0
(49.2)
50.8
0.0
100.0
(133.2)
666.8
379.2
Realized
Planned
Realized
• FY13:
• FY13:
$ 1.400M; EMD Phase 1 Aircraft Integration
Ensure all Should Cost Initiatives are PEO-Approved in
$11.000M; EMD Phase 1 Test Activities
Planned
• FY16-FY18:
• FY 17:
• FY18:
$70.292M; EMD Phase 2 (Contract Award) Source Selection Savings
$24.500M; Flight Body-2
$26.000M; EMD Phase 2 Test Activities
CCaRS and values are consistent. Use Back-up slides
to elaborate on each initiative.
Integrity - Service - Excellence
See Notes Page
Program Should-Cost Summary Example
Should Cost Initiatives:
EMD
• Initiative 1: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate
savings
• Initiative 2: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate
savings
• Initiative 3: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate
savings
Production & Deployment (notional)
• Initiative 1
• Initiative 2
Operations and Support (notional)
• Initiative 1
Other
• Initiative 1
Integrity - Service - Excellence
18
Mandatory Backup Slide
Should Cost Initiative
$M
Current Budget for target
process
Will Cost (ICE) for target
process
Should Cost for target
process
Delta as % of Will Cost
Actual Costs / New Estimates
Prior
Current
Year
Budget
Year
BY+1
Total All
Years
45.0
50.0
62.0
85.0
679.0
22.0
25.0
15.0
15.0
105.0
21.0
20.0
12.8
13.0
86.8
5%
20%
15%
13%
17%
21.5
21.0
TBD
TBD
TBD
Initiative Name:
 Short Narrative Description of Basis for Should Cost Estimates:
(List reasons should cost estimate is below will cost, with
dollar impact)
•
•
 Adjustments and Impacts to Spend Plan
•
•
 Contract Implications
• Incentive/fee structure, timing of evaluations & savings
realized
•
 Risks
• List risks to achieving these savings
•
Key Events/Schedule (Plan):
 Event
 Target Date (Should Cost)
 Target Date (Will Cost
• Short description explaining
change in schedule
 Event
 Target Date (Should Cost)
 Target Date (Will Cost
• Short description explaining
change in schedule
Instructions:
 Prepare one backup slide for each
significant initiative (which need not
always be largest dollar value)
 Which initiatives could be extensible to
other programs?
 Which do most to affect long term costs?
Other Cost Savings Initiatives
(List other steps the program is taking to reduce total government
will cost, with dollar impact)
Integrity - Service - Excellence
20
SAMPLE PROGRAM: “ABC”
Date:
Product Support Strategy
Sustainment Approach




Current (initial CLS covering total system)
Future (sub-system based PBL contracts)
Shortfall in O&M funding in FYDP
Reliability and availability estimates are below goals
LCSP requires update before DAB
Resolution



POM request for O&M restoration submitted
Reliability improvement plan with clear RAM goals up for
final signature
LCSP in draft
Original
Goal
Current
Goal
Current
Estimate/
Actual
Materiel
Availability
76%
80%
77%
71%
Materiel
Reliability
37 hrs
50 hrs
50.5 hrs
48 hrs
Ownership
Cost
245.6B
385.5B
395.1B
395.1B
Mean Down
Time
12 hrs
20 hrs
18 hrs
15 hrs
* Test or fielding event data derived from _______
Notes:
Sustainment Schedule
Today
MS B
Antecedent
Actual
Metric
Issues

Metrics Data
MS C IOC FRP
BCA
FOC
BCA
O&S Data
Sustainment
BCA
BCA
PBL Recompete
LCSP
LRIP Contract Award
Avionics PBL
CLS Start
PBL Recompete
Antecedent
Cost
ABC Original
Baseline
ABC Current
Cost
1.0 Unit-Level Manpower
3.952
5.144
5.750
2.0 Unit Operations
6.052
6.851
6.852
3.0 Maintenance
0.739
0.605
0.688
4.0 Sustaining Support
2.298
2.401
2.401
5.0 Continuing System Improvements
0.129
0.025
0.035
6.0 Indirect Support
1.846
1.925
1.956
15.046
16.951
17.682
Cost Element
Total
Depot Standup
Blended Partnership
Startup
ATTACHMENT
Cost based on average annual cost per squadron
Total O&S Costs
Antecedent
ABC
Base Year $M
102,995.2
184,011.9
Then Year $M
245,665.3
395,147.2
21
Sample Program Schedule
FISCAL YEAR
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
NEED TO ADD TOP LEVEL CRITICAL PATH
F-15E
Integration
F-15E APG-70 GMTT
Dev & Test
AOA
JROC
DT
Normal attack
OA
EOA
1998-2000
MS-B
SDB-II
Development
Timeline*
*Will be updated after
contract award
F-35B & C
Integration
BRU-61/A
1st AUR Avail
RISK REDUCTION
83 mos
F-15E
F-15E
RAA
RAA
Normal Attack
OTRR
IT OT
DT
CAM/SAL
F-15E
Full
Capability
IT OT
CAM/SAL
OTRR
PCA IPR
2020
To Complete
FY19-FY23
12,966
SVR FRP
EMD
2 COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS
SRR
SVR MS-C
2019
59 mos
F-15E Suite 7E OFP
Note: Due to delay of MS B, shaded blue
region will move right accordingly
2018
PDR CTV GTV
PRODUCTION
CA/Lot LRIP 1
LRIP 2
LRIP 3
LRIP 4
FRP 1
FRP 2
Quantity
1050
144
250
390
550
CDR Post-CDR
83 mos
Report
F-35 Block 3.X OFP
F-35B/C
F-35B & F-35C
Initial Fielding
F-35B
OTRR
DT
IT
OT
Dual Power BRU-61/A
F-35C
DT
IT
OT
Delta Qual BRU-61/A for F-35 environment
Excerpt from 28 Jul 09 SDB II CDD, Cpt 11:
- Required Assets Available (RAA): SDB II RAA is the capability to arm twelve (12) F-15Es with two (2) fully loaded BRU-61/A carriage systems each
for 1.5 sorties (144 assets total)
- DoN Assets for Initial Fielding: Initial quantity of SDB II weapons required is 90 weapons and 22 carriage systems based upon one ten (10) plane
squadron with two (2) fully loaded carriage systems each plus ten spare weapons.
Integrity - Service - Excellence
Business Strategy
•
Competition Strategy
–
–
–
–
–
•
How will competition be established and maintained through all phases of the acquisition?
How does the competition strategy facilitate the acquisition strategy?
What is the competition strategy for the upcoming acquisition phase?
How do the results of the last acquisition phase impact the strategy for the upcoming
phase?
Provide results of your Business Case Analysis (performed in conjunction with the
engineering tradeoff analysis to be presented at MS B, include intended use of OSA)
For Each Contract
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
What is the purpose, type and value of the contract?
How is the contract aligned with the acquisition and competition strategies?
What is the incentive structure and how will the incentives foster contractor behavior
resulting in favorable cost, schedule and performance outcomes?
What criteria will be used to select the winning bidder? How do those criteria emphasize
what is most important to the government?
Will warranties be employed? How will they benefit the government?
Does the contract anticipate the acquisition of technical data?
Will the development utilize open systems architecture?
Integrity - Service - Excellence
23
# of Widgets
Program X Affordability – Production Rate
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21
Upper Order Quantity
7
15
18
18
18
18
6
Optimal Economic Order Quantity 10
14
14
14
14
14
14
6
Program X Target Order Quantity* 7
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
5
Lower Order Quantity
5
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
•Provide explanations and rationale behind the data
What is the Upper Order Quantity and how was it determined?
What are the Economic Order Quantities (EOQ)?
Identify the Program Target Order Quantity if different from EOQ
oWhat prevents the program from buying at EOQ
What is the Lower Order Quantity and how was it determined?
oIdentify any reason the program may go below the Lower Order Qty
* If different from EOQ
24
Acquisition to O&S Cost Ratio
Total Required Acq (BY$M):
4,456
Total Required O&S (BY$M):
10,358
Program Funding & Quantities
($ in Millions / Then Year)
RDT&E
Prior $ (PB 15)
Current $ (POM 16)
Delta $ (Current - Prior)
Required1 $
Delta $ (Current - Required)
Prior
FY15
FY16
FY17
FY18
(BY yyyy)
PAUC:
APUC:
FY19
FY20
Curr Est
D Current
55.7M
+4.6%
50.4M
-3.2%
D Original
+10.2%
+60.2%
FY16-20 To Comp Prog Total
Prim ary Line Item s: APPN 0400D - BA 7 - PE 1160403BB; APPN 1319N - BA 5 - PE 0604262N; APPN 3600F - BA 5 - PE 0401318F
108.0
108.0
108.0
-
PROCUREMENT
Prior $ (PB 15)
Current $ (POM 16)
Delta $ (Current - Prior)
Required1 $
Delta $ (Current - Required)
FY14
30%
70%
32.4
30.0
(2.4)
32.4
(2.4)
44.2
43.1
(1.1)
44.2
(1.1)
45.1
45.6
0.5
45.6
-
37.9
38.3
0.4
46.0
(7.7)
12.4
12.5
0.1
15.0
(2.5)
5.3
5.4
0.1
6.5
(1.1)
3.2
3.2
4.0
(0.8)
103.9
105.0
1.1
117.1
(12.1)
-
288.5
286.1
(2.4)
301.7
(15.6)
Prim ary Line Item s: APPN 0300D - BA 2 - BLI 1000CV2200; APPN 1506N - BA 1 - BLI 0164; APPN 3010F - BA 4 - BLI V022A0
-
99.9
99.5
(0.4)
99.9
(0.4)
MILCON
150.4
148.2
(2.2)
150.4
(2.2)
200.2
203.1
2.9
203.1
-
304.8
309.2
4.4
312.3
(3.1)
618.6
522.9
(95.7)
528.1
(5.2)
627.6
530.5
(97.1)
535.8
(5.3)
360.1
538.1
178.0
543.5
(5.4)
2,111.3
2,103.8
(7.6)
2,122.8
(19.0)
2,257.3
1,954.5
(302.8)
1,974.1
(19.5)
4,618.9
4,306.0
(313.0)
4,347.1
(41.2)
Prim ary Line Item s: APPN 0500D - BA 1 - PE 1140494BB; APPN 1205N - BA 1 - PE 0204696N
Prior $ (PB 15)
Current $ (POM 16)
Delta $ (Current - Prior)
Required1 $
Delta $ (Current - Required)
-
-
-
6.1
6.1
6.1
-
2
SYSTEM O&M
Prior $ (PB 15)
Current $ (POM 16)
Delta $ (Current - Prior)
Required1 $
Delta $ (Current - Required)
1.3
1.4
0.1
1.4
-
1.6
1.7
0.1
1.7
-
-
2.1
2.0
(0.1)
2.0
-
2.3
2.1
(0.2)
2.1
-
3.0
3.0
3.0
-
9.0
8.8
(0.2)
8.8
-
15.3
12.6
(2.7)
12.6
-
25.6
22.8
(2.8)
22.8
-
5,904.8
(5,904.8)
235.5
255.6
20.1
6,160.4
(5,904.8)
2,272.6
1,967.1
(305.5)
7,891.4
(5,924.3)
5,168.5
4,870.5
(298.0)
10,832.0
(5,961.5)
Prim ary Line Item s: APPN 0100D - BA 1 - PE 1120172BB; APPN 1106N - BA 1 - PE 0206312M
8.3
8.3
8.3
-
10.4
11.4
1.0
11.4
-
26.5
29.2
2.7
29.2
-
37.8
41.6
3.8
41.6
-
55.0
60.5
5.5
60.5
-
91.4
98.6
7.2
98.6
-
369.2
376.6
7.4
387.4
(10.8)
670.9
579.0
(91.9)
586.7
(7.7)
690.2
598.5
(91.7)
604.9
(6.4)
457.7
642.9
185.2
649.1
(6.2)
221.1
241.2
20.1
241.2
-
TOTAL
Prior $ (PB 15)
Current $ (POM 16)
Delta $ (Current - Prior)
Required1 $
Delta $ (Current - Required)
QUANTITIES
108.0
108.0
108.0
-
138.4
135.6
(2.8)
138.4
(2.8)
204.2
201.0
(3.2)
204.3
(3.3)
257.3
261.8
4.5
261.8
-
2,445.3
2,458.8
13.5
2,489.9
(31.1)
3
Prior Qty (PB 15)
0
2
3
4
6
12
12
0
34
41
80
Current Qty (POM 16)
0
2
3
4
6
10
10
10
40
35
80
Delta Qty (Current - Prior)
0
0
0
0
0
(2)
(2)
10
6
(6)
0
Required1 Qty
0
2
3
4
6
9
9
9
37
38
80
Delta Qty (Current - Required)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
(3)
0
Note 1. Requirement Source: [e.g., OSD CAPE ICE, Oct 2013]
Note 2. O&M requirement assumes [e.g., a service life to 2035; includes ctr field mx, petro/oil/lube, spare/repair parts, depot mx, sustaining engineering & software mx.]
This line does not include of $8.3M (FY15-19) of Acquisition-related O&M for program office expenses, nor does it include O&M-funded disposal costs.
Note 3. Quantities in FY14-15 are funded with RDT&E
version POM 16.1
Integrity - Service - Excellence
25
Program Risks
Insufficient funding to execute aircraft quantity
requirements
Oct 2014
Consequence
Likelihood
Driver: Two Forward Price Rate Agreement (FPRA) increases, Apr
FPRA and Nov FPR Recommendation (driven by a reduction in the
base vs. predictions, erosion in the commercial business, efficiencies in
production, a recent strike, and pension liabilities) and potential
additional rate impacts due to Pension Protection Act compliance and
projected business base loss in FY14 due to decreasing procurement of
V-22s are creating additional budget pressure to execute yearly
budgeted a/c quantities and pressurizing APB and Nunn-McCurdy
acquisition thresholds.
Mitigation Plan:
 Finalize technical evaluation and negotiation of the lot 7 contract
{Leadership intervention as required}
 Assess potential future rate increases and impacts on budget across
program fiscal years (ongoing)
 Pension Protection Act assessment (AIR 4.2 Lead)
• Business base (DCMA lead)
• Continue to Pursue cost reduction/control initiatives (ongoing; see
affordability risk)
 Update program manager’s cost estimate
 Engage Service for funding resolution
•Support PEO(A)/DCMA rate control initiative with Bell (ongoing)
Date: Oct 10 (AH-1Z FRP decision)
Ability to Achieve Affordability Targets to Meet Inventory Objectives
Driver: Higher than anticipated costs due to Bell enterprise growth (overhead rates); raw materials; cabin; supplier
performance; increased labor hours. Two rate increases, Apr Forward Price Rate Agreement and Nov Forward
Price Rate Brochure (driven by a reduction in the base vs. predictions, erosion in the commercial business,
efficiencies in production, a recent strike, and pension liabilities) have recently created additional budget pressure.
Mitigation Plan:
 Establish Affordability plan
 Implement GFE CRIs (Engines, OTO)
 Obtain Advanced Procurement in FY10
 Execute Long Term Agreements/Long Term Contracts
 Finalize SOF inspection requirements
 Implement cost growth control and cost reduction initiatives
 Assess impacts of PB11 Budget and rate increases with Lot 7 Production Proposal
 Include spares in production contract
• Complete Business Case Analysis for MYP
• If supported by BCA, ensure MYP budget approval/lay-in and implement MYP to begin in FY14
Date: On-going
Failure to Meet Total Ownership Cost Reduction
Goals
Driver: Delayed I and D level standup, dynamic component DL&T
disposition, extended ICS, components not making reliability targets
Mitigation Plan:
 Conduct BCA for long term logistics sustainment/PBL strategy
• Stand up Organic Intermediate and Depot Level repair
• NAVAIR approval of H-1 DL&T’s
• Execute 5 year Interim Support Plan contract awards
• CILR drives component redesign efforts/BCAs
Date: Ongoing
Bell Supply Chain Management to Support Increase
to Full Rate Production
Driver: Poor performance of key suppliers, long lead times (bearings,
forgings, castings), LLT purchase orders, staffing, parts shortages,
and limited capacity in critical suppliers
Mitigation Plan:
 Obtain Advanced Procurement in FY10
 Hire Govt Supply Chain Manager (V-22)
 Identify dual source for critical suppliers
 Rationalize supply base
 Place Bell reps on-site at critical suppliers
 Hire staffing to meet demand
 Utilize Bell gated process for outsourcing
 Award FY10 Long Lead
 Support Prime key supplier visits with government representation
 Production Readiness Review (support FRP decision)
Date: COMPLETE Jul 10 (Risk will be closed/deleted next quarter)
26
Milestone B – Required Documents
Document
Originator

2366b Certification Memorandum
Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)
Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)
Acquisition Strategy / Acquisition Plan

Contract Types Determination

Cooperative Opportunities Document

Industrial Base Considerations

Intellectual Property Strategy

Market Research
Affordability Cap (Analysis)
Bandwidth Requirements Review
Component Cost Estimate
Component Cost Position
Business Process Reengineering (IT only)
Capability Development Document (CDD)
Clinger-Cohen Act Compliance
Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)
Cybersecurity Strategy
Economic Analysis (MAIS statutory)
Exit Criteria
ARA
ARA
OIPT Lead/ARA ARA
Component
ARA
Component
ARA
Component
DPAP
Component
ARA
Component
DASD (M&IBP)
Component
Various
Component
DPAP
Component
OIPT Lead/ARA/CAPE
Component
DoD CIO
Component
CAPE
Component
CAPE
Component
A6P
Component
A5R
Component
CIO
Component
CAPE
Component
CIO
Component
AF CIO
Component
ARA
Frequency Allocation Application (DD1494)
Full Funding Certification Memo
Independent Cost Estimate
Independent Logistics Assessment
Component
Component
CAPE
Component


















OSD OPR*
Approver
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
MDA
DOD CIO
Component
Component
MDA
JROC
AF CIO
Component
DOD CIO Review
Component
MDA
DOD CIO
NT and IA
ARA/CAPE/Comp
MDA/CAPE
DCAPE
DCAPE
OASD(L&MR)/DASD(MR) CAE
27
* According to current policy for programs for which USD(AT&L) is the MDA.
Milestone B – Required Documents
Document

Information Support Plan

Net-Centric Data Strategy

Bandwidth Requirements Review

Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP)

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Core Logistics Determination

Low-rate Initial Production (LRIP) Quantity

Manpower Estimate

Orbital Debris Mitigation Risk Report (Space only)

PESCHE and NEPA Compliance schedule

Program Cert DBS Mgt Committee (DBS only)

Program Protection Plan

Cyber Security Strategy

Post PDR Assessment

Replaced System Sustainment Plan

Should Cost Target

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small
Bus. Tech Transfer (STTR) Program Technologies

Spectrum Supportability Risk Assessment

Systems Engineering Plan

Item Unique ID Implementation Plan

Corrosion Prevention Control Plan

Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)

Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)

LFT&E Plan or Alternate LFT&E plan

Live Fire Test and Evaluation Waiver
from full-up, system level testing
Originator
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
OSD OPR*
Approver
CIO
AF CIO
CIO
CIO
DOC CIO
DOD CIO
USD (I)/DASD(SE)
Component
OASD(LM&R)/DASD(MR) MDA
OASD(LM&R)/DASD(MR) SAE
OIPT Lead/ARA/DOT&E MDA
P&R
Component
DASD (S&I)
MDA
DUSD (I&E)
CAE
DBSMC Chair
DASD (SE)
MDA
DOD CIO
DASD (SE)
Component
L&MR/MR
Component
OIPT Lead/ARA
MDA
SBP
MDA
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
Component
CIO
OASD((R&E)/SE
DPAP
ASD (R&E) Corr. Off.
ASD (R&E)
DT&E/OT&E
DOT&E
AF CIO
DASD (SE)
DDR&E
CAE
ASD (R&E)
DT&E/OT&E
DOT&E
Component
DOT&E
DOT&E
28
Milestone Exit Criteria
CRITERIA
ASSESSMENT ELEMENT
INDICATED BY
System Simulation
System performance predictions using the system simulation demonstrates meeting SWE and WE System
Performance Specification (SPS) requirements
Requirements
(KPP) Normal Attack Mode
Scenario Weapon
Effectiveness (SWE)
Normal Attack Development Test
All System Performance Verification Plan (SPVP) Normal Attack flight tests planned prior to MS C (11 guided test
vehicle flight tests) are complete and results correlate with the Integrated Flight Simulation (IFS) and demonstrate
meeting the SDB II SPS requirements for SWE and WE
(KSA) Weapon
Effectiveness (WE)
Live Fire Warhead Testing
Planned warhead arena and sled testing prior to MS C are conducted with production representative hardware
and demonstrate meeting SDB II SPS requirements
(KPP) Weapon Loadout
BRU-61/A Integration
4 SDB II weapons integrated on a BRU-61/A carriage and F-15E software integration laboratory (SIL) testing
demonstrates the ability to carry and employ both SDB I and SDB II weapons loaded on separate BRU-61/As
(KPP) Carrier Operability
System Compatibility
Results of qualification tests or analysis prior to MS C show no critical issues requiring a significant redesign of the
weapon to meet compatibility with carrier operations
(KPP) Materiel Availability
Materiel Reliability
Results from Test Analyze And Fix (TAAF) reliability testing demonstrate meeting SDB II Reliability Growth Plan
(KPP) Net-Ready
Interoperability
Approved Information Support Plan (ISP)
F-15E
A normal attack flight test completed using Universal Armament Interface (UAI)
F-35B & F-35C
Draft F-35 Interface Control Document (ICD) completed
Technology Readiness
Design assessed at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7 at MS C
Manufacturing Readiness
Assessed at MRL 8
Aircraft Integration
Aircraft Integration
Design Maturity
System design maturity
29
ADM Proposed language
Proposed Acquisition Decision Memorandum
language:
 I have made the certifications required by
section 2366b of title 10, United States Code
 I approve MS B and authorize entrance into
Engineering and Manufacturing Development
(EMD)
 Affordability Cap is $ (see notes page)
 I approve the proposed Exit Criteria (attached)
 XXX
 YYY
 ZZZ
Integrity - Service - Excellence
30
Way Ahead

Awaiting OSD approval of APB

OIPT scheduled for XX Date

DAB scheduled for XXX Date
Integrity - Service - Excellence
31
BACKUP and SAMPLES
See Footnotes for additional information
Integrity - Service - Excellence
32
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT: H-1
Snapshot
Upgrade Example
Assessment
of Program
FY2010
SE Issues
PRR
FY2011
MS III
• Significant past engagement through numerous
reviews
• Program and contractor supported SE engagement
• No further issues going forward
• SE will remain engaged in the main rotor cuff/yoke
redesign
• Support MS III and transition to ACAT 1C
Discussion of
SE issues
being worked
1. Systems Engineering
SEP ready for approval; IUID held up
2. Design Maturity
Mature; redesign of MR cuff/yoke
3. Reliability
Excellent RAM numbers
4. Software
No issues
5. Integration
No issues
6. Manufacturing
Mature processes; 7 LRIP lots
7. KPPs/KSAs
6 of 7 demonstrated, one on track
8. Others
Summary of Risks,
Mitigation Steps and
Risks, Issues, Opportunities Issues/Opportunities
*See notes section for rating criteria
Mitigation Activities (Closure Dates)
R1. Failure to meet TOC reduction goals
may cause budget exceedance
Continue current plan; expedite cuff/yoke redesign (Dec 2015)
R2. Main rotor cuff/yoke redesign not
complete in time for test
Certification milestone plan developed and monitored by PM. (Jun
2011)
Consequence
Likelihood
Technical Risks
Comments
Program Health
R1
Benefit
Technical Issues
Continue focus on contractor’s SCM and make parts (ongoing)
2. Structural Repair Manual late to need
Expedite approval of DL&T‘s (ongoing with NAVAIR)
Opportunities
O1. Capture lessons learned; best
practices; store in command library
Likelihood
1. Production parts; spares
R2
O1
Low investment; great benefit for program and NAVAIR
Note: Any item not rated green should be addressed in the issues section. If more space is required, to accommodate the technical risks, address the
“technical issues” in the “SE Issues” or “Program Health” sections. Delete “Opportunities” if not applicable.
33
International Cooperation
Choose appropriate
funding chart below
*-from Spruill chart
Cooperative Activities: (list cooperative partners, describe
cooperative participation in the program, both current and planned, to
include list of actual international agreements-- e.g., bilateral or
multilateral discussions, loans of equipment, information exchanges,
cooperative RDT&E, co-production DEA/IEAs in technology area, etc.)
Foreign sales: (list current or potential FMS or Direct Commercial
Sales buyers)
Interoperability Requirements: (list all international
objective and threshold requirements in program documents (JCIDS and
5000 series); describe plan to achieve those requirements, to include
which increment of a program they will be achieved)
Foreign technology assessment: (from TDS and AoA;
guidance in Deskbook Acquisition Guidebook, Section 2.3.6., identify how
10USC2350a statutory requirement has been met; assessment whether
or not a project similar capability is in development or production in a
partner nation that could be procured or modified to meet DoD needs)
Key Technologies: (description of the technologies and CPI in
the program)
Anti-Tamper Analysis: (based on ATEA Guidance and Defense
Exportability assessment)
Differential Capability Analysis:
(Assess potential need
for development of differential capabilities for a range of anticipated
coalition partners in view of the interoperability requirements,
cooperative activities, and potential foreign sales efforts envisioned)
Proposed Approach: (Describe how
design and development
of validated AT and Differential Capability requirements will be
addressed in the program’s master schedule )
(Identify issues specific to international -- e.g.,
impact (cost, schedule, performance) of
proposed cuts on partner(s)/buyer(s),
updated APUC, status of negotiations and
impact to US and partners under the relevant
agreement(s) (MOU, MOA, LOA)
26