Army Digitization Master Plan '96
7. ACQUISITION STRATEGY
7.1 Background
On 30 January 1996, the AAE and VCSA approved Version 4.0 of the ATA. Enforcement of standards contained in the ATA will be critical to ensure interoperability among independently developed programs and systems. All PMs must certify compliance with the ATA to the Milestone Decision Authority (PEO C3S) prior to formal release of draft and final RFPs for any experimental or modernization systems that are part of or require interface with ABCS. Successful application of standards and demonstrated interoperability will be elements considered prior to approving progression to the next phase of system acquisition.
The ATA is largely based on commercial standards. In addition, the use of COTS technology—including commercial standards for computer hardware and software—will accelerate the acquisition process. Standardizing interfaces and replacing military standards with commercial standards will move toward obtaining needed bandwidth and the latest technological capability at industry competitive prices. This will also allow a degree of closure on the rapid pace of technology expansion, given the time span of a normal DoD acquisition.
Since commercial standards are not normally employed in military tactical command and control systems, a major part of the ADO streamlining strategy is focused on incrementally developing requirements definitions through a series of BLWEs and AWEs. Under standard acquisition procedures, the equipping of the brigade-sized EXFOR supporting the TF XXI AWE would have required a high-level acquisition decision; the use of production funding; and long, detailed acquisition competitions. Since the field experiments are being used to define and refine digitization requirements for the entire Army, the use of RDTE funding and a lower-level decision authority was approved for obtaining the necessary equipment and software.
As most tactical and combat vehicles in the Army have no computer or position locating system, the first step in the strategy is to acquire equipment to be added—or appliqued—to those platforms. Four different categories of appliques (commercial, ruggedized, militarized, and dismounted) provide the range of ruggedness and portability needed to test how much the Army can incorporate commercial standards in equipment to be used under field conditions.
TRW was the contractor chosen for the first phase acquisition contract (Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2)). TRW is also responsible for developing the software required to provide situation awareness and command and control capabilities.
The applique will be used in the BLWEs and AWEs on the majority of the platforms normally located within the brigade maneuver area, with the following caveats:
- In early experiments at brigade-and-below levels, appliques and ATCCS terminals will both be mounted on C2, intelligence, and CSS command post vehicles. Once ATCCS systems are capable of porting FBCB2 software for later experiments, the then-redundant appliques will be removed.
- Platforms with embedded command and control capabilities—like the M1A2 Abrams— will upgrade their systems and migrate their current C2 software to the FBCB2 software.
- Some legacy platforms will never be fitted with an embedded digital capability. They will always require appliques in order to be integrated into digitized networks.
7.1.1 Applique Description
First-generation applique equipment will consist of:
Additional software modules will provide an interface with embedded systems on the M1A2 Abrams, AH-64D Longbow Apache, and OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Selected platforms from the Marine Corps and Air Force will also require appliques, based on the degree and scope of their participation in each experiment.
The initial set of appliques will be used primarily for situational awareness and operational control. All similar systems will not receive the same applique. User requirements will dictate which systems within each tactical organization will be appliqued and the degree of ruggedness required, based on the tactical employment profile of each element. Since the cost of the applique rises commensurate with its degree of ruggedness, that robustness must be matched to mission requirements, but not overmatched in terms of expensive and unnecessary capability.
Applique solutions may not be practical on all platforms. Other solutions will be identified for those platforms in which space, weight, power, electrical interference, or human interface restrictions are encountered, or in cases where the applique may restrict mission capability.
The four applique hardware categories are:
- DSSU: a small, Litton Lightweight Computer used to integrate dismounted soldiers into the digital battlespace. The DSS/Ancillary Device will operate in three configurations: one providing a limited off-vehicle remote capability from a platform-mounted V3 unit; one serving as a stand alone soldier-transported unit for dismounted infantry; and the third as a position navigation device, primarily for CSS vehicles.
7.1.2 Applique Contractual Requirements
The basic contract provides software, hardware, and systems support to equip a modernized brigade task force organization and its associated divisional support elements (e.g., artillery, engineer, air defense), as well as accommodate data inputs from higher command echelons. The FBCB2 contract also contains an option to procure additional hardware, make software changes, and provide system support needed to conduct follow-on experimentation and required test and evaluation (T&E) of the FBCB2 system prior to a Milestone (MS) III decision.
Specific FBCB2 contract tasks include:
7.1.2.1 Applique Software
In addition to the applique hardware, the contractor is providing a common FBCB2 system and support software suite. The software suite contains the functionality provided by the C2 portion of the M1A2 IVIS and prototype B2C2 software. The FBCB2 software meets the open system standards described in the ATA, while incorporating and re–using existing government and commercial software to the maximum extent practical. It is also forward-compatible with the mainstream of commercial hardware and software developments to allow ease of new technology insertion in the future. The modularity of FBCB2 software is such that specific modules can be incorporated into embedded weapons systems/platform capabilities, as appropriate.
7.1.2.2 Applique Interfaces
The applique will be connected to several external devices which are installed in the host platform or provided separately. The host platform PM is responsible for planning and programming for these interfaces. They include communications devices, radios, position/location sensors, and on-board platform sensors. The platform PM is also responsible for drilling the holes for mounting the applique set on the host platform.
7.2 Technical Approach
The approach adopted by the ADO involves two basic means for digitizing platform types:
7.3 Acquisition Approach
The acquisition approach will be event-driven, featuring a high degree of acquisition streamlining which—from a programmatic standpoint—requires rapid procurement and efficient use of existing funding lines. Acquisition streamlining is necessary to ensure that information technologies can be acquired and fielded before they become obsolete.
The acquisition program is divided into three phases as illustrated in Figure 7-2.
7.3.1 Phase 1: Concept Exploration (FY94-97)
The Concept Exploration Phase began with initial program planning and the definition of a technical architecture. Operational and system architectures are being defined to support digitization of a heavy brigade with attached light forces. These units—a tank battalion; mechanized infantry battalion; light infantry battalion task force; and CS/CSS platoon, company and battalion slices from division assets—have been designated as the EXFOR for the TF XXI AWE. The EXFOR is being built around units of the recently-reflagged 4th Mechanized Infantry Division at Ft Hood, Texas, and will begin experiments following receipt of enhanced digital communications and automated command and control systems in June 1996.
Experimental scope will expand upward from squad/platoon levels in a gradual building block approach, culminating in a full Task Force experiment at the National Training Center (NTC) in February 1997. Following a simulation exercise (SIMEX) in September 1997, a Division XXI AWE will be conducted by the EXFOR Division in November 1997. It will be a Battle Command Training Program (BCTP)-type command post exercise (CPX), with the division’s digitized brigade-level tactical operations centers (TOCs) interfacing with the division tactical C2 nodes in a constructive AWE. Only the 1st Brigade’s TF XXI TOCs will deploy down to battalion level.
Phase 1 will terminate with a Milestone I/II decision.
7.3.2 Phase 2: Demonstration (FY97-99)
Once a full analysis of the digitized hardware and software performance is completed and an in-progress review (IPR) grants approval to move to the next phase, elements of the EXFOR will be upgraded with improved applique systems. Following an additional train-up period, an FDTE will then take place in FY98 to validate and verify changes made to TTP, hardware, and software. The FDTE will be conducted by elements of TF XXI to conserve resources and reduce train-up/reconfiguration time. A follow-on Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) will be conducted in FY99 to confirm that Critical Operational Issues and Criteria (COIC) have been met. At the conclusion of the IOTE, the mature digital systems are expected to provide a go-to-war capability. This phase will terminate with a MS III decision, currently scheduled for FY99.
7.3.3 Phase 3: Deployment (FY00-TBD)
The MS III review will trigger the production contract. It will be competitively awarded and contain several options structured to meet normal 12-month delivery periods for expeditious fielding to Force Package One (FP-1) units. Many embedded systems will be fielded during this period, but appliques will still be needed to support non-digitized legacy equipment—such as the M1A1 tank—and platforms for which no embedded digital capability is planned. Units with older appliques will also be refitted with upgraded versions.
Funding
Funding efforts are integrated using the Digitization MDEP oversight process. The Director, ADO, maintains control over a portion of the PM’s funds until the PM provides a suitable plan that demonstrates adherence to digitization standards and the ATA. The ADO ensures the MDEP funding requirements are programmed, budgeted, and executed in a manner consistent with established Army priorities. The ADO coordinates the MDEP with the ARSTAF; MACOMs; and PEOs/PMs, who must inform the ADO prior to making resource allocation adjustments. Annually, they make recommended adjustments to the MDEP to meet the changing requirements of the Army digitization effort. Results are briefed to the AAE and VCSA.
The MDEP includes funding for various research and development PEs and SSNs related to digitization. Due to the importance of the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funded activities related to digitization, O&M funding is also included (under Joint Venture Experimentation). Additional hardware and software requirements are expected to emerge during the experimentation process. As these additional needs are validated, the funding profile will be adjusted IAW competing priorities.
The ADO will also periodically conduct technical and program execution reviews. Release of program funding contained in the digitization MDEP will be contingent on completing these reviews. PEOs/PMs will provide copies of status reports to the ADO in the same format and frequency as required by their higher headquarters.
7.5 Evaluation and Follow-on Requirements Development
During the initial phase, emerging requirements and technology growth will be assessed to ensure congruence. It can be assumed that the functionality required of the software and hardware—both in appliques and in embedded systems—will grow as user requirements become more refined. The increase in required functionality and industry's capability to provide it will be assessed at each phase of the program.
Since appliques will be installed in some platforms that have other digital systems, FBCB2 software will have to be integrated with those systems. In the initial phase, the contractor will define and document these interfaces and size the FBCB2 software's processing and memory requirements to accommodate these potential interfaces in the future.
7.6 Operational Assessments
Operational assessments will be provided as part of the TRADOC Battle Lab experimentation process and heavily emphasized during the AWEs. Information will be gathered regarding the feasibility, suitability, functionality, reliability, maintainability, and MANPRINT issues associated with the digitized systems. Maximum use of government-validated models and simulations are planned to determine the significant unknowns. Frequent user experimentation opportunities leading to the TF XXI exercise should provide ample data to reduce the scope of follow-on operational and technical tests. Results from such experimentation will provide much of the data required for formal materiel release following Phase 2 completion.
Applique hardware will only be procured for experimental or evaluation purposes and will not be fielded to units other than those units participating in the experiments and evaluations. Following successful completion of the FDTE and IOTE, a full materiel release must be obtained for subsequent fielding and operational use. As embedded C2 systems are modified, they will be evaluated as part of the normal product improvement process.
7.7 Logistics
As the prime contractor, TRW is responsible for defining, designing, refining, and providing CLS for the applique hardware and FBCB2 software—to include spares, repair/replacement, and training—throughout the Concept Exploration and Demonstration Phases. Conversion to organic support as part of the individual platforms' integrated logistics support (ILS) programs will occur during the Demonstration Phase in preparation for the Deployment Phase. For embedded systems, logistics support will use the approach applied to the host platform.
7.8 Trade-Offs
The applique user requirements as stated in the SOW were carefully evaluated to determine which can be supported by current technology. During Phase 1 and prior to Phase 2, emerging requirements and technology growth will again be assessed and evaluated to ensure congruence. Efforts have been made to keep changes in user requirements to a minimum during Phase 1 by prioritizing the functionality required of the applique software and digital hardware and establishing a good idea cutoff date to increase the probability of initial success. As Phase 2 is entered, advancements in technology should support the incorporation of additional requirements as they are developed and validated. After the IOTE, a determination should be made as to the cost effectiveness of incorporating additional functionality in the Phase 3 contract.
Integration of applique software with individual platform control systems (e.g., laser rangefinders and hull-turret azimuth indicators) is an ultimate goal of the applique effort. Phase 2 will include preliminary design and sizing provisions to facilitate subsequent efforts toward this goal. The contractor shall be responsible—in conjunction with platform PMs—for ensuring these potential interfaces are defined and documented.
7.9 Sources of Competition
The sources for these acquisitions are those industrial teams consisting of commercial computer manufacturers, software developers, and system integrators who have the ability to satisfy the requirements of the SOW. The Phase 1 contract was awarded to the offeror who was deemed to submit the proposal with the best value to the government. It is not practical to set aside this acquisition for small business because of the magnitude and diversity of both hardware and software needs and the extensive manufacturing and system integration efforts required.
Although there will be no set aside for small or small disadvantaged businesses, all required clauses will be included IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.702. Subcontracting to small disadvantaged businesses will be a contract requirement, with all required clauses included in the solicitation and contract.
Full and open competition will be the basis for all contract awards. The Government awarded the initial contract to one contractor team at the conclusion of a formal source selection process. This contract included system engineering, software development and integration, hardware, and all support necessary to support the TF XXI AWE and the follow-on FDTE and IOTE. All three experiments/evaluations will serve to provide essential information leading to a MS III decision and a new contract to equip FP-1 units. The emphasis of this approach is on system development and experimentation to determine the requirements for a subsequent production contract to support fielding digital capability for FP-1 and other units over a seven year period. The MS III contract will also be an open solicitation and will be awarded at the conclusion of a formal selection process. Component break-out does not apply to this program since none of the applique components are expected to cost more than one million dollars.
7.10 Risks
7.10.1 Technical Risks.
Adequate NDI hardware and open system architectures already exist in the commercial marketplace. There was no requirement in the initial solicitation that could not be provided by current commercial industrial capability. The challenge and risks of this program center on the ability to ruggedize the products, integrate them, and successfully install and operate them on a wide range of military platform types in varied operational environments. Risk was diminished by minimizing and prioritizing Phase 1 technical requirements, and by requiring the contractor to maintain the equipment during Phase 1 while also serving as the total system integrator.
As technical requirements expand during the experiments, they will be included in the contract option for Phase 2, to be awarded in the 1997 timeframe. Because of the expected continued growth in the micro-electronics and computer industries, any expanded requirement for Phase 2 will be kept within the industry’s capability and is considered low risk.
7.10.2 Programmatic Risks.
A major consideration in the applique acquisition strategy is to ensure adequate competition for future acquisition. The overall acquisition strategy is for an open architecture which allows for maximum competition within the commercial market. Opening competition in Phase 3 will provide added programmatic risk, but is offset by the added value expected to be obtained through improved technology and competitive procurement for the rest of the applique acquisition. Added programmatic risks result from limited knowledge of various platform operating systems; potential problems associated with additional functionality; risks associated with other subsystems; and the potential need to redesign installation kits in Phase 2.
Selecting a single contractor in Phase 1 for only those quantities of appliques required to support the TF XXI AWE, FDTE, and IOTE will also minimize the effort for RFP preparation, subsequent evaluation, and time to award since the areas of logistics, training, test, and cost can be minimized to cover only the limited scope required. Sufficient time will exist to prepare the Phase 2 acquisition contract option during FY97 for release and award in early FY98. This longer lead time will allow detailed guidance to be developed for logistics, testing, training, and clarification of production quantities for inclusion in the second contract option.
7.10.3 Cost Risks.
Cost risks for awarding a system integration contract to a single contractor were considered moderate because of the immaturity of Government Furnished Information (GFI) application software; the lack of installation kit definition; the limited information concerning platform operational systems; and the unknowns associated with total system responsibility on the part of the contractor. However, cost risks were reduced through the competitive approach. Phase 1 cost reductions were attained through an open, competitive solicitation for the system integration services and a basic quantity of items to support the planned experiments and evaluations. During Phase 1, knowledge of a follow-on competitive contract award for the post-MS III production quantity will provide incentive for the incumbent contractor to minimize overall cost and incorporate cost savings into the Phase 2 Option. An optional per-item repair contractor maintenance plan can be competed among military depots or other contractors as a potential for additional cost savings during the Phase 2 effort.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
