Download - 1 Acquisition Priorities and Guiding Principles David G. Ahern Portfolio Systems Acquisition Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition)

1

Acquisition Prioritiesand

Guiding Principles

David G. Ahern Portfolio Systems Acquisition

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition)

May 5, 2010

2

Agenda

•Setting the Stage: SecDef and USD(AT&L) Priorities

•Major Policy Changes—•DoD Instruction 5000.02•Weapons Systems Reform Act of 2009

• Introducing New Capabilitiesfor the Warfighter

3

Excerpts from Secretary Gates Congressional Testimony - February 3, 2010

• Budget reflects major institutional priorities• First, reaffirming and strengthening the nation’s

commitment to care for the all-volunteer force, our greatest strategic asset

• Second, rebalancing America’s defense posture by emphasizing capabilities needed to prevail in current conflicts, while enhancing capabilities that may be needed in the future

• Third, continuing the department’s commitment to reform how DoD does business, especially in the area of acquisitions

Today’s presentation focuses on our organization, policies, and procedures to address acquisition reform

4

USD(AT&L) Dr. Ashton Carter Priorities

• Support for the War Effort• Expedient logistical support for Afghanistan• Anticipate and meet the system needs of today’s warfighter• Agile and expert contingency contracting

• Execute the Secretary's program decisions• Acquisition Reform

• Carry out the 2009 Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act, but don’t stop there!

• Start well and address risk early and often, focus on the back end as well

• Employ good sense, good discipline and above all good people• Encourage realism, transparency and the willingness to seek help when

needed• More Emphasis on Science and Technology• Insert AT&L expertise and perspective into Shaping Efforts

• Quadrennial Defense Review, Missile Defense Review, Space Posture Review, and the Nuclear Posture review all have acquisition impacts

4

5

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE(ACQUISITION)

Shay Assad (Performing the Duties)

DIR, INDUSTRIAL POLICY

Brett Lambert

DIR, PORTFOLIO SYSTEMS ACQUISITION

David G. Ahern

DIR, SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

Linda Oliver (Acting)

DIR, SPACE INTEGRATION OFFICE

Gil Klinger

PRESIDENT DEFENSE ACQUISITION

UNIVERSITYFrank Anderson, Jr.

DIR, DEFENSE CONTRACTMANAGEMENT AGENCY

Charlie Williams

Assistant Secretary Of Defense (Acquisition)

DIR, PROGRAM ASSESSMENT & ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS

Gary Bliss

6

Problems Identified• Most potential programs proceed to Milestone B without a predecessor review to assess the

capability need and direct analysis of alternatives

• Technical maturity is not adequately demonstrated prior to program initiation• Program cost, schedule, and performance inadequately informed by design considerations• Requirements “creep” continues to de-stabilize programs• No formal and effective opportunity between Milestone B and Milestone C for MDA to assess

progress, adjust / defer requirements, or, consistent with statute, re-structure the program

Previous Acquisition Process

IOCBA

Technology Development

System Development& Demonstration

Production & Deployment

Systems Acquisition

Operations & Support

C

User Needs &Technology Opportunities

Sustainment

Process entry at Milestone A, B, or C Entrance criteria met before entering

phase Evolutionary Acquisition or Single Step

to Full Capability

FRP DecisionReview

FOC

LRIP/IOT&EDesignReadiness Review

Pre-Systems Acquisition

(ProgramInitiation)

Concept Refinement

ConceptDecision

7

2003 - 2008

• Six years of appropriations and authorization acts• Studies and associated recommendations:

• The Quadrennial Defense Review • Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment (DAPA)• The Defense Science Board (DSB) Summer Study on

Transformation• The Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Study by the Center for

Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) • Assessments by the Government Accountability Office

• Resulting pilot actions and experimentation• A series of functional policy memos

Since the last DoDI 5000.02 was published we’ve had:

8

Comparison to DoDI 5000.2, May 12, 2003

A B C

Materiel Solution Analysis

Materiel Development

Decision

PDR CDRPDR

Post-CDR AssessmentOr

PDR after B w/ Post-PDRAssessment

Engineering & Manufacturing Development

(Program Initiation)



FRP DecisionReview

Production & Deployment

LRIP/IOT&E

Defense Acquisition Management System, Revised December 8, 2008

Systems Acquisition Sustainment Pre-Systems Acquisition

FRP DecisionReview

DesignReadiness

Review

(Program Initiation)

A B C

System Development & Demonstration Production & Deployment


Concept Refinement

ConceptDecision

PDR CDR


LRIP/IOT&E

Defense Acquisition Management System, May 2003 – December 2008

9

DoD Instruction 5000.02 - Summary

• While we have much to do, the Department has taken action to address many of the issues related to program execution• Ensuring a proper foundation before initiating programs• Limiting requirements changes• Requiring mature technologies and system engineering

discipline• Competitive prototypes to reduce risk, improve

competition, inform decisions• Better integration between development and operational

test and evaluation• Improvements in how we incentivize contract performance

• It will take time to realize the results of these changes …but we are already seeing improvements

10

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act(PL 111-23) Org Excerpts

Section 101 — Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation– Senate confirmed official, takes on the cost estimation function outlined in both bills– Takes over the functions of the Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) – Assigns the Director two deputy directors, one for cost assessment (CAIG staff relocates here) and one for

program evaluation (the remaining PA&E staff).

Section 102 — Directors of Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering– Newly created roles reporting directly to USD AT&L– Responsible for issuing joint guidance relating to the integration of developmental test and systems engineering,

and managing the associated workforces– Components required to develop and implement plans to ensure they have the appropriate resources for

developmental testing and systems engineering, and the two Directors are required to assess these plans.

Section 103 — Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis SD to designate a senior official as the principal official for conducting performance assessments and root cause

analysis for major defense acquisition programs. Responsible for issuing guidance related to performance assessment for acquisition programs and for analyzing

the root causes of poor performance, including reviews post Nunn-McCurdy

Section 104 — Assessment of Technological Maturity of Critical Technologies of Major Defense Acquisition Programs by the Director, DDR&E

Section 105 — Role of the Commanders of the Combatant Commands in Identifying Joint Military Requirements

11

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act(PL 111-23) Policy Excerpts

Section 201 — Consideration of Trade-Offs Among Cost, Schedule, and Performance Objectives in Department of Defense Acquisition Programs– Officials outside the JROC given a chance to develop estimates of cost and schedule before the

JROC approves a requirement,– Requirements are structured in a way that will allow for incremental, evolutionary, or spiral

development– JROC, in consultation with these same officials, to set a schedule objective for each requirement – Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (the official formerly known as PA&E) to

issue guidance in advance of all Analyses of Alternatives (AOA). Each alternative considered in the AOA must evaluate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives;

– MDA, prior to granting a Milestone B certification, to certify that appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and performance

Section 202 — Acquisition Strategies to Ensure Competition Throughout the Lifecycle of Major Defense Acquisition Programs– To ensure that the acquisition strategy for each program includes measures to preserve the

option of competition, at both the prime and subcontract levels, throughout the life of the program– Ensure that maintenance and sustainment contracts are awarded competitively and that public

sector performance of maintenance and sustainment is fully considered. Section 203 — Prototyping Requirements for Major Defense Acquisition

Programs– Modify acquisition guidance to require competitive prototyping prior to a Milestone B decision

12

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act(PL 111-23) Policy Excerpts

Section 204 — Actions to Identify and Address Systemic Problems in Major Defense Acquisition Programs Prior to Milestone B Approval– Program manager to notify the Milestone Decision Authority, if at any time prior to a Milestone B

decision, the estimate of the total program cost grows by more than 25% or the program schedule for initial operational capability grows by more than 25

Section 205 — Additional Requirements for Certain Major Defense Acquisition Programs– Programs entering into system development (i.e., receiving Milestone B approval) on the basis of

a waiver to any of the statutory criteria for Milestone B, must be reviewed by the milestone decision authority at least annually until they meet all of the criteria

– Semi-annual review, by the official in charge of performance assessment, of programs that have not been terminated following a Nunn-McCurdy breach

Section 206 — Critical Cost Growth in Major Defense Acquisition Programs– Modifies the “Nunn-McCurdy” law, relating to significant and critical cost threshold breaches on

major defense acquisition programs. It would require the official responsible for performance assessment to perform a root cause analysis following a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach. It would include a presumption of termination for such a program

Section 207 — Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Major Defense Acquisition Programs– Ensure that DOD gets systems engineering advice from sources independent of the prime

contractor– Systems engineering and technical assistance functions contractor on a major weapon system

cannot have a corporate affiliate who is a major contractor on the same weapon system

13

Introducing New Capabilitiesfor the Warfighter (Tactical)

• Multi-mode guidance, data links, network architectures and improved propulsion will be fielded in the upcoming years, making possible:• Engage moving surface/ground targets (JAGM, SDB II, SLAM-ER, JSOW C-

1, NLOS-LS/PAM)• Engage through-the-weather (JAGM, SDB II, JSOW C-1)• Operate in countermeasures and electronic attack environments

(AARGM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, AIM-120D AMRAAM)• Expanded engagement envelopes (JAGM, JSOW C-1, SDB II, AIM-9X, AIM-

120D) • Flexible targeting

• Automated hand-offs (all)• In-flight re-targeting (JSOW C-1, Tomahawk Blk IV)• Third party targeting (SDB II, JSOW C-1, Tomahawk Blk IV, AIM-9X, AIM-120D,

AARGM)• Lock on after launch (JAGM, SDB II, AIM-9X)• Autonomous target class recognition (JAGM, SDB II, JSOW C-1)• Autonomous and/or semi-active guidance modes (JAGM, SDB II, AMRAAM,

AIM-9X, JASSM, AARGM, JSOW C-1, SLAM-ER)

14

Introducing New Capabilitiesfor the Warfighter (Tactical – con’t)

• Flexible Command and Control• Re-direct pre-planned routes (JSOW Blk III, Tomahawk Blk IV)• In-flight status reporting (SDB II, AARGM, Tomahawk Blk IV, AIM-

120D)• Weapon impact reporting (SDB II, AARGM, Tomahawk Blk IV)• Third party control (SDB II, JSOW C-1, AMRAAM, Tomahawk Blk IV)

15

Introducing New Capabilitiesfor the Warfighter (Strategic)

• Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) System• Propulsion Replacement Program (PRP) and Guidance Replacement Program

(GRP) deliveries completed• Extends life, improves reliability, maintains performance of MMIII operational

force by replacing current fielded rocket motors• Upgrades/extends MMIII guidance system through 2020 by replacing 1960’s

guidance system electronics • Working to determine what is required to sustain MMIII. Goal is comprehensive

roadmap MMIII operational to 2030. • Trident II (D-5) Strategic Weapon System

• D5 Life Extension procures D5 missile motors and other critical components to support extended 45 year SSBN hull life (last OHIO-Class SSBN decommissioning in 2042)

• Sustains redesign of guidance systems and missile electronics• Procures an additional 108 missiles over the original 425 D5 missiles• IOC 2017

• Conventional Prompt Global Strike • Completing technology experiments and posturing for concept demonstrations

DoD wide

16

Introducing New Capabilitiesfor the Warfighter (MD/BMD)

• Missile Defense• Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD) will enhance integrated air and

missile defenses by to integrating systems (e.g. the Patriot, JLENS, SLAMRA) elements (e.g. radars and launchers) through a common C2 Node – the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS)

• Army-Navy Joint Track Management Demonstration (FY10-11) • Bridges Army IAMD Integrated Fire Control Net with Navy CEC Net

• Tri-national MEADS program nearing CDR this year• Ballistic Missile Defense (by end of FY10)

• Emplace 26 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) (long-range) at Fort Greely, AK Missile Field and 4 GBI at Vandenberg AFB, CA (total 30)

• Deliver 61 Aegis Sea-based SM-3 interceptors (short-intermediate range) • Deliver 20 Aegis BMD-capable engagement destroyers/cruisers• Deliver One Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery with 26 THAAD

Interceptors• Deliver 52 Patriot Advanced Capability -3 Fire Units with 791 interceptors • Upgrade L-band radar in Alaska; Sea-based X-band radar; Upgraded Early Warning

Radars in California, United Kingdom, and Greenland; Forward-based transportable radars (TPY-2) in Japan and Israel.

• A Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to support five Combatant Commands

17

Other Systems on My Radar

• Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) –• AF Program; 2007 Nunn McCurdy – certified May 2008• Executing Comprehensive Reliability Growth Plan

• Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)• Joint (Army/Navy) Program for Fixed and Rotary Wing Aircraft• In Tech Development (Competitive); approaching EMD

18

DepSecDef Policy for Communication With Industry

• It is DoD policy to encourage frequent, fair and open dialogue on matters of mutual interest

• Includes (but is not limited to):• Technology trends and development objectives• Program performance (both defense systems and services)• Complementary DoD and industry business practices and

policies

19

Final Thoughts

• As you listen to the presentations, consider how we can better partner to meet the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s priorities• Support the war• Carry out the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act, but

don’t stop there• Emphasize S&T• Insert our expertise and perspective into shaping efforts

• Enjoy the conference!