slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews) Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews) Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews) Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews) Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review Logistics Functional IPT 30 April 2010.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews) Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review' - giulio


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

DON Acquisition Governance (Gate Reviews)

Establishing a Post-IOC Sustainment Review

Logistics Functional IPT

30 April 2010

DON has established 10 Gate Reviews, across the span of systems Acquisition. The purpose of each is governance of specification, design, development, and planned systems introduction. Gate Reviews align performance capability requirements to Acquisition execution and improve senior leadership decision-making by providing a comprehensive understanding of risks, program health, and life-cycle cost.

slide2

A

B

1

3

2

DON Gate Review Alignment Version 2.0 - SECNAVINST 5000.2E

Program Initiation at Milestone B

C

IOC

FOC

Materiel

Solution

Analysis

Technology

Development

Engineering & Manufacturing

Development

Production &

Deployment

Operations & Support

JCIDS Process

Operations & Support

Life Cycle

Sustainment

Integrated System

Design

System Capability & Manufacturing Process

Demonstration

LRIP

Full-Rate Prod & Deployment

CBA

4

6

6

6

6

5

6

Pre

FRP DR

Post

IBR

Post

CDR

CPD

CDDCONOPS

AoA

SDS

RFP

Sustainment

ICD

Materiel Development

Decision

FRP

Decision

Review

MS C

PDM

Post PDR

Assessment

Post CDR

Assessment

Disposal

TD PDM

Technical Reviews

SVR /

FCA / PRR

ASR

ITR

PDR

IBR

CDR

TRR

OTRR

PCA

ISR

SRR

SFR

PDR

WSARA

Logistics Reviews

ILA

ILA

ILA

ILA

Gate

Chair:

ASN(RDA)

Gate

Chair:

CNO/CMC

Legend:

Tech Review

ILA

slide3

CLASSIFICATION (U)

GATE 6 SUFFICIENCY REVIEW(SUSTAINMENT)

PROGRAM NAME

ACAT: ____

Joint Designation: ___

Program Manager Name; PM Code

Requirements Officer Name; RS Code

Briefer Name; Code

Briefer Name; Code

Standard template format

for all 10 “Gate Reviews”

Review Date MM/DD/YYYY

Classified by:

Reason:

Decl on:

3

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide4

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Purpose

  • Decisions Desired
    • Assess sustainment effectiveness and affordability at IOC + NLT 4 years
    • Resolve initial operational command sustainment issues (events and circumstances may trigger timing of Gate)
    • Address need for program change, to improve systems sustainment and affordability

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide5

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

SustainmentGateMembership

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide6

Sustainment Gate Entrance/Exit Criteria

  • Sustainment Gate Entry criteria
  • 1. Achieved Full Rate Production decision
  • 2. Achieved System IOC
  • 3. Completed post-IOC Supportability Assessment (ILA)
  • 4. Updated Program cost estimates (CAPE protocols)
  • 5. Updated Program LCSP, LRFS, TOC reduction initiatives
  • Sustainment Gate Exit criteria
  • Concur with recommendations to resolve asset and
  • mission readiness issues or shortfalls
  • 2. Concur with TOC reduction opportunities and investment
  • 3. Progress towards CPD capability performance
  • 4. Concur with Program Health assessment
slide7

1. IOC/FOC Schedule and Definitions

2. Review of LCSP programmatics, costs, and affordability in context of allocated resources (i.e. LCSP/LRFS execution)

3. Results of Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA)

4. CPD Parameter Metric Measurement

5. Technical Health

6. T&E Major Deficiencies and Resolutions

7. Budget and Funding

8. Threat and Capability Review

9. Summary of CONOPS, as being employed

10. Configuration Steering Board (CSB)

11. Evaluation of TOC Reduction, Initiatives, and Investment

12. Extended SCP-related analysis, in accordance with NCCA policy and CAPE protocols

13. Major cost drivers by KPP/KSA impact, to include specific cost reduction strategies

14. Interdependencies

15. Schedule

16. Significant Risks

17. Program Health

18. OSD Sustainment “Quad” Chart

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Briefing Content

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide8

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Page 1 of 3

  • Business Model Details
  • Supportability Analyses
    • Level of Repair
    • Manpower
    • Analysis and Reporting of Sustainment/Readiness/Cost Performance
  • Sustainment Contracts
    • PBL Strategy and evaluation
    • Other Government
    • Contractor
    • Product Data Ownership/Usage
  • LCSP Integrated Schedule/Milestones

Note: The content on this slide will likely require multiple slides to address.

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide9

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Page 2 of 3

  • Manpower, Personnel, and Training
  • Product and Technical Data
  • Maintenance Strategy
    • Levels of Repair
  • Facilities and Infrastructure
  • Logistics Footprint
    • Describe as functions of systems design interface (including diagnostics), maintenance strategy, supply and transportation, manpower and training, etc.
  • Safety and Environmental Compliance

Note: The content on this slide will likely require multiple slides to address.

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide10

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

Page 3 of 3

  • Sustainment Program Management
    • Assimilation within broader logistics infrastructures
    • LCSP adjusted to “replaced systems” sustainment planning
  • Supply Management and Transportation
  • Technology Refreshment, Obsolescence Management, and Corrosion Prevention
  • Modernization opportunities (investment)

Note: The content on this slide will likely require multiple slides to address.

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide11

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Results of Supportability Assessment (ILA)

Note: Need to provide mitigation plans in backup for all items rated Yellow or Red.

CLASSIFICATION (U)

Pre-decisional – Not for Release

slide12

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

CPD Parameter Metric Measurement

Not just

Sustainment

KPP/KSAs

Life Cycle Sustainment Metrics to include KPPs, KSAs, and target goals. Separate slides follow, one per parameter not at threshold value.

Basis Legend

E = Estimated | C = Calculated

T = Test Data |L = Legacy

Improving Constant Degrading

Pre-decisional – Not for Release

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide13

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Program Budget versus Total Ownership Cost Estimate

Program Funding & Quantities

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide14

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP)

Logistics Requirements and Funding Summary (LRFS)

Tailor template to program’s actual LRFS categories

LRFS is the LCSP’s requirements-to-budget baseline for life-cycle planning/execution of systems Sustainment

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide15

CLASSIFICATION (U)

FOC

A

B

C

IOC

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Updated TOC Profile

New “Service Cost Position” Serves as a Baseline for “TOC Objective” Target Line

Note any life-cycle assumption changes

## $

## $

## $

## $

## $

## $

## $

LATEST TOC OBJECTIVE

LASTEST SCP ESTIMATE

$$ M/TY

OM

INITIAL SCP

MP

MILCON

MPN

PROCUREMENT

RDT&E

FY# FY## FY## FY## FY## FY##

Prior Yrs Spent

LRIP

FRP – Qty/Period

$$

FYDP $$

Remaining LC FYs $$ by Year

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide16

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Program Planning / Execution

TOTAL OWNERSHIP COST ESTIMATING

Post-IOC Cost Estimating

Notes: Any pertinent information that cannot be readily gathered from the data table above can be included in this text box. It provides an easy method of conveying more details than the data table may allow.

slide17

CLASSIFICATION (U)

Legend

Meets Criteria

Partially Meets Criteria

Does Not Meet Criteria

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Program Planning / Execution

SUSTAINMENT

Sustainment and Logistics Activities

Page 1 of 2

slide18

CLASSIFICATION (U)

Legend

Meets Criteria

Partially Meets Criteria

Does Not Meet Criteria

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Program Planning / Execution

SUSTAINMENT

Sustainment and Logistics Activities

Page 2 of 2

slide19

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Summary of CONOPS

as Employed

  • Describe concept of employment of the capability, as now employed
  • Mission area contribution to the Joint force including
    • Continued alignment with OSD capability guidance/vision and Navy/Marine Corps strategies
  • Operational unit employment (numbers/organizations)
  • Types and quantities of assets currently fielded
  • Overview of logistics and sustainment operations
    • Fielding
    • Manning
    • Maintenance Management and Logistics IT
    • Supply Management (to include IUID)
    • Transportation

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide20

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Interdependencies

Programs, plus major public/private Sustainment infrastructure Interdependencies

Program H

Program I (upgrades)

Program J

Program K

Program L

Program M

Program A

Program B

Program C

Program D

Program E

Program F

Program G

C S P

Program XYZ

Program XYZ

Solid denotes current system

Dash denotes future system

Arrow to Program XYZ denotes supports Program XYZ

Arrow from Program XYZ denotes Program XYZ supports

Indicates program are interdependent

No known issues affecting inter-related programs

Resolvable interface issues affecting programs

Unresolvable interface issues affecting programs

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide21

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGAM HEALTH (PoPS)

Program Name

68.55/100

Program Requirements

8.00/8

Program Resources

18.41/25

Program Planning / Execution

34.14/59

External Influencers

8.00/8

Parameter Status

8.00/8

Budget and Planning

8.45/13

Acquisition Management

Sustainment

8.02/16

Fit in Vision

X

Scope Evolution

Manning

9.96/12

Industry/Company Assessment

Software

4.15/5

Program Advocacy

CONOPS

Total Ownership Cost Estimating

3.00/10

Contract Planning and Execution

2.88/9

Interdependencies

8.00/8

Test and Evaluation

1.66/2

Government Program Office Performance

7.47/9

Legend

Performer Summary

X

Critical Criteria

Technical Maturity

0.96/2

Technology Protection

6.00/6

DRAFT

Last Modified

March 18, 2010

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide22

PoPS “Green” state for each of 7 criteria under the sustainment metric at the Sustainment Gate

slide23

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Evaluation of TOC Reduction, Initiatives, and Investment

  • Key O&S Phase cost drivers and root causes addressed
  • Update prior program TOC planning and ongoing execution
  • Show execution results in terms of reducing cost toward the TOC Objective
  • Proposed investment/modernization, to target the SCP/TOC Objective delta within any span of the O&S phase that is not yet being addressed by a TOC reduction initiative

Note: The content on this slide will likely require multiple slides to address.

CLASSIFICATION (U)

slide24

Department of the Navy

Total Ownership Cost (TOC)Guidebook

28 January 2010

https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=350380

“This is the first, limited version of DON's TOC Guidebook.  Its focus is guidance for ACAT programs, as they construct and present their TOC related strategy and execution, during all stages of formal life cycle governance.  For DON, that means the ten Gate Reviews with associated program health assessments (PoPS).”

slide26

CLASSIFICATION (U)

PROGRAM NAME

GATE 6 Sustainment

(CORE)

DATE UPDATED

Decisions Reached

Note: Please provide performance against the listed Exit Criteria

CLASSIFICATION (U)

logistics related toc challenges
Logistics-related TOC Challenges
  • 2-3% O&M and 1.5% Manpower cost growth/year (DoD)
  • Navy Logistics expends billions yearly ($31B at OPNAV N4 alone) and must move closer to world-class levels of operational effectiveness, responsiveness, visibility, trust in the supply system, end-to-end IT/communication, and investments, if LCC/TOC is to be substantially reduced.
  • The majority of the 2020 Battle Force exists today
    • 222 of today’s 285 ships still required in 2020, so these platforms must all achieve their expected service lives
  • Need to understand impact of individual ACAT decisions on cumulative TOC, in order to posit the question “What are we willing to pay for new program LCC, given it’s contribution to cumulative future logistics/readiness bill?”
    • TOC “mitigation” steps during Development phases
    • TOC “reduction” steps during Sustainment
total ownership cost toc affordability initiatives program
Total Ownership Cost (TOC) Affordability Initiatives Program

5000-policy/ACAT governance/SCP/expanded cost analysis

all have raised LCC visibility and decision-weight priority for

higher TOC-valued alternatives. Time now to revive a yearly

program to solicit for and screen affordability investments to

boost readiness, lower life cycle cost, and leverage proven-

reliable/maintainable commercial technology.

SYSCOMs, ACATs, and Providers Proposed Initiatives for POM 12

- 472 TOC initiatives submitted to N4 for rating/ranking

- Investment in 15 of $131M are projected to Deliver ~$1.4B

savings, over the FYDP

- Leadership confident in financial projections and willing

to take offset at the bottom line

- N4 will now codify TOC investment governance process

29

total ownership cost toc
Total Ownership Cost (TOC)

Good question, Bill.

“By all means talk about "TOC" in the earliest stages of systems develop with new-start programs. But do so in the context of those "actionable" pre-MSB actions and events that manifest early-phase TOC. In programs where most of the major systems development decisions are made, then "TOC" is increasingly synonymous with effort to lower sustainment related cost.”

Actions that "mitigate" TOC prior to MS-B (JCIDS/R3B + AoA + TLCSM rationale + LCSP/LRFP oversight + Gate Reviews).

Actions that "reduce" TOC after MS-B (Gate Reviews + Yearly TOC Investment + application of readiness-to-cost analyses).

30

slide31

Future Trends/Final Point

LCL Work and Workforce

Axiom: Strongest variables to eventual total program cost are decisions made during the earliest JCIDS/Acquisition phases

+Axiom: Eventual majority of ACAT total program cost is O&S

phase sustainment cost

+Axiom: LCL is inherently the strongest advocacy for mitigating and

reducing majority O&S sustainment cost

+Axiom: Parts orders take 4 times longer to receive in services than

industry, due less to technology and more to culture and leadership

=Paradox: Minority role of LCL, during early JCIDS and Acquisition, is not commensurate with LCL potential impact on the majority of program cost

a) Better integrate insular logistics information systems across Service enterprises

and b) favor for promotion “cross-functional” LCLs, with the intent that they migrate

their sustainment cost-mitigating competency into earliest-phase JCIDS/Acquisition

process and program positions. These steps should help c) generate readiness-to-

sustainment cost data and analyses, specifically to build cases that ACAT decision

processes increasingly find and select optimal life-cycle ownership cost alternatives.

slide32

SECNAVINST 5000.2E Final Draft:

Acquisition Logistics and TOC Highlights

  • Sustainment and LCC/TOC are higher priorities throughout
    • Mutual LCSP/SEP evolution, to ensure JCIDS sustainment capabilities are integral to systems performance. Specifically, a reliability growth program shall be documented in the SEP and LCSP and briefed at Gate Reviews
    • Evident throughout ACAT governance (Gate Reviews)
    • Evident in an expanded range of program cost analysis (AoA, SCP, etc.)
    • Evident in expansion of ILAs to a post-IOC timeframe
  • The PM shall document a product support strategy, including the RSSP, in the LCSP annex to the AS. The LRFS adjunct to the LCSP (required) relates LCSP execution to programmatic resources.
    • LCSP briefed at Gates, reviewed by N4 or I&L, approved by MDA (not PM)
  • AoA Studies to assess sustainment performance (RAM) and LCC of alternatives
  • PM TLCSM responsibility requires all fundamental program decisions heavily weigh those alternatives that are most conducive to system life-cycle sustainment/affordability
    • AS and LCSP must set the means to evaluate/use standard parts/equipment
    • Data Management Strategy (DMS) must integrate with life-cycle sustainment