FROM THE ARMY ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE

Dr. Bruce D. Jette

THE ZEN OF DATA 

Managing data holistically from the foxhole to the Pentagon enables better decision-making.

The old saying is that “an army runs on its stomach,” but that’s not quite the case anymore. With our feet firmly planted in the digital age, our Army doesn’t run on its stomach—it runs on data.

Currently the acquisition community has no enterprise-wide tools for managing Army acquisition-related data such as financial information, system requirements, logistics or schedules. The execution of billion-dollar programs is maintained on isolated Excel spreadsheets of program and budget analysts. When senior decision-makers need information, they have to send a request through their chain of command. That request then gets consolidated over the course of days and weeks by various headquarter elements until the needed information is sent back up the chain. It takes too much time. At present, there is no efficient and effective way to store and share the data that leaders need when they need it. We are changing that.

Commercial companies such as Amazon and Google and the financial industry have demonstrated that current and emerging technologies make data management critical to being an industry leader. Now is the time for Army acquisition to invest in the tools and governance structures that will facilitate a data culture transformation in the Army.

I believe effective data management is one of the keys to successfully rationalizing Army data—in other words, grouping related data fields into tables, determining key fields and then relating those tables using common key fields. Efficient access to the right data allows Army leaders to make better, well-informed decisions. But to achieve effective data management, we need to change the way we conduct business—change our culture—from the executive level at the Pentagon to the Soldier in the foxhole.

HOLISTIC DATA

Data is defined as factual information used as a basis for reasoning, discussion or calculation. It is invaluable, but only if it is collected, managed and maintained properly. Without effective data management, our business processes could experience a dependability breakdown—there could be dozens of needlessly duplicative processes, products could be wildly over budget and anything that’s measured in numbers, like how many tanks are operationally ready, could be totally inaccurate.

The Army is an enormous entity, and the amount of data it generates is staggering. The acquisition enterprise itself is no small part of that, and we’re aiming to have a holistic approach to managing data. It is absolutely imperative.

Right now, data is stored in many different locations—in various clouds or on many different servers—and isn’t particularly accessible to those who may need it; it’s siloed. In other words, we have different datasets in different places, and no way to share or access them easily when we need them. Many “authoritative data” may be in conflict with other “authoritative data.” Managing data holistically means:

• Having a single owner of any particular data (file, data field and data fill).
• Having only one authoritative instance of any particular data.
• Authority for access to and use of, including managed replication and data entry, any authoritative particular data.
• Procedures for use, access, management, control, update and entry.
• Relational database structure. A relational database stores data in tables; data can be accessed or reassembled from these tables in many different ways without having to reorganize them. The result is to interlink data, make it flexible for users and eliminate data duplication.

Once this is accomplished, linking different data sets can form the “big picture” of acquisition and securing that data.

We need a plan to implement data in a holistic data life cycle, with three major phases:

• Data collection. Quality data is gathered from across the acquisition enterprise at all levels, either by manual or—in the future—automated entry. The objective is to automate conveniently and simply at the lowest level possible, to provide insight when consolidated without further intervention.
• Data integration and interpretation. The datasets are quickly and easily accessible to those who need and are authorized to use them. They provide accurate, actionable information.
• Data maintenance. Data is archived, auditable and secured, at rest and in transport, to ensure that it is usable in the long term and protected from internal and external threats, such as ransomware. Auditability will ensure traceability, facilitate forensics and help eliminate insider threats.

It is important that the entire acquisition community participate in the holistic data management approach for it to work most effectively. At the tactical level, this means entering timely, accurate, quality data into your collection system. From the supervisory or strategic level, it means reviewing the data for current applicability. At the senior leadership level, this means using the data to make well-informed, near- and long-term program decisions as well as applying it to the modernization of the future force. It means, from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology level, developing and implementing an achievable implementation plan.

ACQUISITION DATA DOMAIN

My office is developing the Acquisition Data Domain, which will be a significant framework for holistic and effective data management. It will allow Army acquisition leaders to have comprehensive information on all aspects of the Army’s modernization programs through three tiers: data entry, data management and data-driven decisions:

• Data entry and capture. Thorough identification and capture of authoritative appropriate data is the key to success in the first tier of the domain. The goal for initial data entry is to automate the collection of data as it is being generated at the working level. At most, users will enter data once and it will be pulled into a central data repository, which will allow access for many other people and organizations based on their responsibilities. The key to making data entry efficient and authoritative will be identification and adoption of tools that help those at the working level to conduct daily business and satisfy requirements.
• Data management system (DMS). This second tier will link different data sets across functions, weapon systems and phases of an acquisition program life cycle. It will capture, store and manage data from program conception to divestiture. The creation of the DMS is the boldest and most complex portion of this vision. The various Army programs and systems begin generating data as the concept is born and continue through development, production and sustainment up to divestment.

Within each phase of the life cycle, there are different data subdomains such as finances, schedules, performance specifications, requirements and logistics. Program interdependencies will require the DMS to identify and link the cost, schedule and performance requirements between the programs. Once these data sets have been developed and linked, Army leaders will be able to use analytical tools to make better decisions.

• Data-driven decisions. The third tier will require the identification and development of data analysis tools to assist leaders with decision-making and resource planning. The tools will likely use technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify life cycle red flags early—like overspending and production delays. Learning about those indicators early will help program managers deliver quality products on time and on budget, and will allow senior leaders to make better decisions on current and future modernization programs.

CONCLUSION

Effective data management will be the key to efficient business operations in the future. This is another case where we benefit by looking to industry and emulating their success. If we use all the resources at our disposal, such as artificial intelligence and industry’s example of effective data management, we can ensure a future acquisition enterprise in which business processes are truly streamlined, with programs and products practically always guaranteed to be delivered on time and on budget. In the end, our Soldiers will be the beneficiaries.

This article is published in the Summer 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

WASHINGTON (June 18, 2019)—The sixth annual Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Greene Awards for Acquisition Writing competition is underway! Lt. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski, principal military deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) and Director of the Army Acquisition Corps, announced the start of the annual competition today to encourage critical writing focused on Army acquisition issues.

“Each year, we invite participants to share their experiences, ideas, and perspectives in one of four categories—acquisition reform, future operations, innovation, or lessons learned—by submitting articles, essays, and opinion pieces,” Ostrowski said. The competition is designed to foster a dialogue on the way forward for the acquisition community in overcoming challenges to build the future force.

The competition is named for Maj. Gen. Greene, the Deputy Commanding General of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan, who was killed by an Afghan soldier on Aug. 5, 2014, while on a visit to Marshal Fahim National Defense University in Kabul, Afghanistan. During his distinguished 34-year career, he had served in ASA(ALT) as the Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management.

“The competition is open to everyone, and I am always impressed by the response,” Ostrowski continued, noting strong support from across the Department of Defense. “While our winners and honorable mentions each year are primarily from the Army acquisition community, they also include representatives from the Air Force, the Navy, and the Defense Acquisition University,” he said.

Those interested in participating should submit works between 500 and 1,800 words that are unclassified, original, not previously published or submitted to a writing competition, and completed during Fiscal Year 2019.

The deadline for submissions to usarmy.pentagon.hqda-asa-alt.mbx.acq-writing-awards@mail.mil is midnight, Sept. 24, 2019. Four award winners will be selected, one in each category, with four additional works selected for honorable mention.

The results of the competition will be announced in early December 2019. The winners will be recognized at the annual U.S. Army Acquisition Executive’s Excellence in Leadership Awards ceremony scheduled to be held in Washington, D.C., in February 2020.

Additional information about the competition can be found at www.army.mil/asaalt, including the call for submissions. The 2014 to 2018 Maj. Gen. Harold J. “Harry” Greene Awards for Acquisition Writing winners and honorable mentions are located at https://asc.army.mil/web/acquisition-awards/acquisition-wall-of-fame/#writing.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

To reach its goal of an acquisition “renaissance,” the Army must create an architecture for modernization that provides a blueprint for how all of the pieces fit and work together.

by Nickee Abbott and Richard Haberlin, Ph.D., Cmdr., USN (Ret.)

Preparing for conflict requires the Army to not only modernize how it organizes, trains and equips the force, but also how its makes decisions. The Army budget narrative, in which the Army lays out its rationale for the funding it requests of Congress, calls for “a bold change—a renaissance—across the Army.” To achieve that renaissance by 2028, the Army has to field the next generation of combat systems, write new doctrine for the optimized use of those systems and reorganize the service into the formations that will fight with those systems. Developing those new systems will require continuous, iterative interaction among all of Army acquisition’s stakeholders. Engineering them will require architecture, analysis and experimentation.

The Army’s newly established cross-functional teams each focus on assigned modernization initiatives, leading to improvements in key capabilities. Unfortunately, the mechanism to ensure these improvements achieve the intended synergy in practical operation is immature. Capabilities must work together in a seamless and intuitive Soldier experience or they will never make it to the fight. Senior leaders have acknowledged that current processes and tools suffer from three critical flaws:

• The requirements development and refinement process does not execute at the speed necessary to meet the Army’s goals. It often takes years to generate requirements.
• The requirements development process does not clearly align to Soldier needs when integrated across the capability portfolios. Capabilities that increase Soldier burden will be abandoned.
• The analysis of performance is not clearly aligned to support acquisition decisions. Analysis often comes too late to help decision-makers or is only representative of the best and most ideal use cases.

In a recent example, the Mobile Short-Range Air Defense system was developed by the Air and Missile Defense Cross-Functional Team to fit an immediate need for maneuver units to identify and counter air threats quickly and effectively. However, the solution design does not include requirements for integration with the existing defensive and offensive fire control systems: the Integrated Fires Control Network or the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System. The operational benefit of an integrated solution was lost during requirements generation.

SOLUTION

To achieve a modernization renaissance, the Army needs to address the three critical flaws in the acquisition process. The best way to address them is a robust architecture development process. Architecture, like a blueprint for a building, serves as a planning guide for system development. In the same way that a blueprint indicates where walls should connect but does not define what color they are painted, the architecture should be specific enough to keep system development on track, but still allow for innovation and creativity. An architecture grounded on consistent, authoritative data and that clearly defines how systems work together will hasten the requirements generation process, stimulate integration across portfolio boundaries and align analysis with decision-making.

A modernized approach to Army architecture starts with capturing individual system requirements from cross-functional teams during concept and capability development. Then, with participation from stakeholders in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)) and the U.S. Army Futures Command, the approach must identify cross-portfolio and enterprise requirements. The architecture solution must include a digital implementation where all data is stored in an authoritative repository and accessible across the enterprise. This “capture once, use many times” construct streamlines processes, reduces errors and establishes a common baseline for prototyping, experimentation, analysis and materiel development.

ARCHITECTURE METHODOLOGY
A modernized approach to Army architecture begins with system requirements from the cross-­functional teams. Then, cross-portfolio and enterprise requirements are identified by stakeholders in ASA(ALT) and the Army Futures Command. The final architecture must include data storage that is accessible across the enterprise. (SOURCE: ASA(ALT) Office of the Chief Systems Engineer)

WHAT IS ARCHITECTURE?

In its simplest form, architecture is the visual depiction of a complex system documenting its components, connections and functions. The architecture process can be used as a management tool: a blueprint for cross-functional teams to follow while conducting system development. Architecture can also be a communication tool to express complex logic, hierarchies and interfaces to stakeholders of varying technical prowess. Additionally, architecture can serve as a justification tool, useful for understanding decisions and confirming assumptions early in the system development process. Through the use of a common data repository, all architectures can be consistent and traceable from concept to deployment. Finally and most importantly, architecture shows how systems are interdependent and interconnected, how those systems are working synergistically toward operational goals.

As the blueprint for Army modernization, architecture enables transformation of business processes and integration of systems across the enterprise to minimize duplicative capabilities and maximize interoperability. Through the architecture process, Army acquisition will realize significant benefits as a well-managed federation of systems. Architecture enables the integration of systems-of-systems within portfolios, often referred to as vertical integration, and across portfolios, or horizontal integration, through standardization of methodologies, lexicons and better understanding of external interfaces.

Architecture ensures effective and efficient processes, systems, services and resource allocation through the capture and reuse of enterprise knowledge. It supports the collaborative engagement of ASA(ALT), Army Futures Command and all other acquisition stakeholders by providing templates for views to support decisions. Consumer and producer roles for collecting data and developing these views should be aligned to established roles and responsibilities.

DOD has defined a set of standardized architecture views, a mixture of pictorial diagrams, matrices and lists, known at the DOD Architecture Framework. Within the DOD Architecture Framework, capability views (defining the abstract system capabilities) and operational views (detailing activities and tasks the systems might accomplish), align to the Futures Command through the concept development and requirements definition processes. Systems views, describing physical components, align to ASA(ALT) through the systems engineering processes of program executive offices and program management offices. Standards views, containing the rules, policies and guidance systems, must adhere to, are established and are maintained by the Office of the Army Chief Information Officer/G-6. When assembled, all of these views become an integrated architecture model.

ARCHITECTURE AS AN ENABLER

Making approved capability views and operational views available early in the development cycle allows for timely identification of capability gaps and operational needs. Operational requirements can then be derived from these products. System views of existing and legacy products are a source for performance requirements, which are particularly important when one system needs to be integrated into another larger system (e.g., a new radio for a vehicle). Standards views serve to identify relevant standards that, when followed, should address interoperability requirements.

For example, an operational view of a new ground combat vehicle clearly depicts how it is used to defeat bunkers and armored vehicles. At the same time, the operational view also clearly depicts capabilities the vehicle will not have. Stakeholders will know by looking at the operational view―which could be a diagram, a flow chart, a matrix, a table of activities, etc.―that the new vehicle is not intended to defeat enemy tanks or be submersible. A system view of all the command-and-control systems that will be integrated into the new vehicle defines size and weight requirements for the vehicle. The standards view prescribes that the power bus on the new vehicle have a certain voltage so that all the equipment integrated will work properly. Architecture views developed early in the system-development process reduce uncertainty and re-engineering while increasing common understanding for stakeholders.

When the development and maintenance of these architecture products are managed by the acquisition stakeholder community in an upfront plan, requirements generation can follow a documented process from initial concept to prototype. The architectures can be used to communicate operational goals and system constraints between disparate groups. Decisions made or not made in system development can be adjudicated in terms of the architecture. Program managers can consult the architecture to check if a capability, operation or component is affected by a decision to add or remove a function from a system. Second- and third-order effects that are not obvious in stove-piped system development can be easily identified when the system is placed in the larger system-of-systems or enterprise architecture.

ONLY CONNECT
The Project Manager (PM) for Tactical Network, part of the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical (PEO C3T), equipped the first unit―the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division―in February with the new inflatable satellite communications system known as Transportable Tactical Command Communications. Tools must work intuitively for the Soldier, or they will never make it to the fight. (U.S. Army photo by Amy Walker, PM Tactical Network/PEO C3T)

ARCHITECTURE AS A PROVIDER

Leveraging the data stored in an architecture model provides several benefits. First, it links concepts to capabilities to solutions and provides operational context, processes, activities and requirements. This end-to-end traceability ensures that the developed system remains focused on Soldiers’ needs. Architecture defines the standards for implementation necessary to field an interoperable system. Setting standards not only ensures interoperability with existing systems, but it also creates more opportunity for development of future capabilities that may also be integrated by setting expectations and enabling modular integration.

A linkage from concept to capability to solution ensures that a Soldier’s needs continue to be met in increasingly complex systems through simplified configuration management. The ability to trace architectures from concept view to system view ensures that cross-portfolio requirements are identified and not ignored or casually traded away later in the development process. A standardized architecture methodology and diagram set allows different stakeholders to communicate their interests and concerns across portfolio boundaries in a language that can be universally understood. The architect is able to capture the warfighter’s requirements and translate them into the language of the materiel developer. Traceability works in both directions, giving materiel developers insight into how a particular requirement meets warfighter needs, and showing the warfighter why a particular materiel solution was chosen given the cost, schedule and performance constraints that the materiel developer must adhere to. This makes it easier to understand the decisions made by all parties in the Army’s modernization process.

ARCHITECTURE AS A VALIDATOR

Through the requirements generation process, architecture captures and defines system attributes and provides a basis for comparing system performance against operational requirements. Architecture may be used to link analysis with early experimentation using the operational requirements, system attributes and underlying data stored in the architecture model. Prototyping, experimentation and analyses, via modeling and simulation, will help refine requirements and help set the threshold and objective specifications for materiel development. High-fidelity models and complex scenarios are challenging enough to build and maintain without analysts spending time combing stakeholders’ repositories for data—much of which is unusable as it is incomplete, has dissimilar formats or only accounts for inter-portfolio connections. An architecture model can be referenced for standardized performance, integration and interoperability requirements that can be analyzed before the evaluation of alternate solutions. Architecture model availability would accelerate expected system performance analyses, increasing the chances that they would be completed in time to inform acquisition decisions, often not the case in acquisition today.

With a single, authoritative architecture model, analysis can be better managed to support acquisition decision-making. Model fidelity and scenario development will take precedent over data gathering and corroboration. With a clearer understanding of the architecture, decision-makers will be better able to direct analysis efforts to be more refined and better answer difficult questions before making a potentially irreversible acquisition decision. Analysts will be able to use to architecture to further improve model and scenario fidelity as they are able to quickly and efficiently communicate in a common language with both operational requirements owners and material developers. With clear, relevant, high-fidelity model data in hand, decision-makers will have the justification to defend their acquisition decisions.

ARCHITECTURE IN A DIGITAL WORLD

For an architecture to be successful in a highly connected, digital enterprise, it must include all stakeholders, be readily accessible and be easy to navigate from concept to deployment. A digital architecture model has the additional role of being the authoritative data repository for all data pertaining to solutions under development and their integration with other systems. This repository becomes the single launch point for analyses performed on the system, providing a consistent data source for modeling and simulation tools to link directly into.

In this way, the repository serves as a mechanism to manage configuration of the current state of the enterprise and an enabler for analyses of future designs. Reusing system data stored in an authoritative digital repository establishes a common baseline for various solutions under development. Mapping solutions to the common baseline provides the justification for analyses of expected performance of alternative solutions. Analysts will be able to clearly point to how their work supports the acquisition decision-making process. In the same way, the common baseline simplifies future integration of additional components as technologies mature. Common baselines enable “plug and play” solutions to be developed, instead of designing a system from the bottom up whenever a new function needs to be added.

Using data from the architecture model, context and decision-specific views, outside of the standard set of DOD Architecture Framework views, could be customized for specific discussions and decisions. Creating unique views from the same underlying data ensures consistency across the enterprise. Through this data repository, enterprise knowledge can captured efficiently and made available for reuse. Reuse may include new collaborative communications between portfolios, or new and innovative analyses.

HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION STUDY

As a recent example, the Army Futures Command implemented a horizontal integration “tiger team” to document first-order expected interdependencies, systems or functions that rely on other systems to work properly, between the cross-functional teams’ systems. The team developed an architecture methodology to capture these interdependencies from both an operational and system perspective. Recognized interdependencies for this effort included communications; networking position, navigation and timing; synthetic training; power distribution and generation; sustainment; interoperability; autonomy; and commonality of sensors and subsystems. The team used the architecture methodology developed during the study to inform subsequent analyses, modeling and simulation, course-of-action development and near-term resourcing decisions for senior acquisition leaders. This architecture methodology was recognized by Army Futures Command leadership as valuable—so much so that it was approved for inclusion in their Future Force Modernization Enterprise requirements documentation.

CONCLUSION

In a January 2018 interview with Defense News, Army Secretary Mark T. Esper summed up the role of architecture by noting that “the key, or part of the key going forward, has to be to understand the architecture and to map it out so we have the plan. … It’s like building a house—you have to have a blueprint. Having a blueprint doesn’t necessarily mean deciding who will supply the fixtures or materials or what will be used, but it defines what is needed.”

Architecture supports the identification and documentation of system interdependencies with technical rigor, frames and quantifies opportunities for resolution, and enables informed decision-making. As a living product, architecture supports timely requirements development and updates in the face of new systems and emerging threats. Architecture ensures the end-to-end traceability of requirements to solution as a system goes through concept, requirement generation and deployment. The architecture confirms that a Soldier’s equipment aligns to an initial need for that equipment. Finally, architectures support comprehensive analyses to refine operational concepts and system solutions, and can serve as blueprints for force modernization.

For more information, contact Fred Buchanan in ASA(ALT)’s Office of the Chief Systems Engineer at fred.b.buchanan.civ@mail.mil.

NICKEE ABBOTT is director of the Architecture and Analysis Directorate in the ASA(ALT) Office of the Chief Systems Engineer. She holds an M.S. in strategic planning from the Carlisle Army War College, an M.S. in electrical engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Drexel University. Her organization focuses on modernizing Army materiel systems to deliver engineered, integrated and validated solutions for the Soldier at all echelons. She leads the organization in production of a synchronized ASA(ALT)-integrated master schedule, capability set architectures and Army network analyses that follow a disciplined system-of-systems engineering process. As a key figure in the coordination and collaboration with key stakeholders, she works to ensure that the Army’s modernization initiative is engineered and validated to meet the needs of the Soldier. She is Level III certified in program management and in engineering.

RICHARD HABERLIN, Ph.D., Cmdr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), is senior technical adviser in the Modeling, Simulation, Experimentation and Analysis Division at MITRE Corp. He leverages 20 years of Navy operational and staff experience to produce tailored, relevant and defensible analyses informing executive-level decisions across DOD and the broader government. He earned his doctorate in systems engineering and operations research at George Mason University, and holds an M.S. in operations research from the Naval Postgraduate School and a B.S. in ocean engineering from the United States Naval Academy.

This article is published in the Summer 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

By Michael Bold

FORT BELVOIR, Va. (June 25, 2019)—A modern army marches not on its stomach but on its data, Dr. Bruce D. Jette, the Army acquisition executive, writes in the new issue of Army AL&T magazine. Exactly how the Army identifies, collects, manages and analyzes data throughout all Army programs’ life cycles―from the foxhole to the Pentagon―is the theme of the Summer 2019 issue of Army AL&T. In it, read about:

At present, there is no efficient and effective way to store and share the data that Army leaders need when they need it, says Dr. Jette, also the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology. We are changing that, he writes, in “THE ZEN OF DATA.”

From Sun Tzu to machine learning, having good data is more than half the battle. The Army’s acquisition data domain promises to prove that once again. Read how in “DATA IS DECISIVE.”

The Army Leader Dashboard is tackling the Army’s data problem, bridging the gap between assumptions and insights for strategic resource decisions. Find out how in “CREATING INSIGHT-DRIVEN DECISIONS.”

The Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems is the Army’s home for information technology networks and business systems. It’s profiled in “ASA(ALT) AT WORK.”

The latest issue of Army AL&T is more than data, though. Budgeting for Army acquisition programs is both art and science, in which clarity and consistency set the tone for success. Read how the sausage gets made in “NO MYSTERIES, PLEASE.”

A new rapid prototyping program is supercharging the Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office’s search for capabilities. See “FUNDING KICK-START.”

The departing project manager for Tactical Network within the Program Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical discusses challenges and must-haves as the Army moves toward its one network vision, in “MODERNIZING THE NETWORK.”

Artificial intelligence (AI) on the battlefield will come. That’s guaranteed. Before AI automates “slaughterbots,” we need to think through the moral and ethical implications of such powerful technology in warfare. See “MAGIC BULLETS: THE FUTURE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN WEAPON SYSTEMS.”

Be sure to check out our new platform for the Army AL&T e-magazine, at https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-magazine/. It’s the same great publication but on a spiffed-up site that makes it easier to read, share and save the commentary, analyses and workforce development news you rely on-and contribute to. In addition to making Army AL&T easy to navigate on a desktop computer, the new platform uses a mobile-friendly format to make the magazine just as easy to read on a smartphone or tablet.

Also, remember that Army AL&T is built on contributions from you, the Army Acquisition Workforce. For more information on how to publish an article in Army AL&T magazine or a Faces of the Force submission, visit https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-submissions/ to see our writers guidelines, upcoming deadlines and themes.

Don’t forget to check out ASA(ALT) for news and information at the acquisition leadership level!

• Like: https://www.facebook.com/ArmyASAALT
• Follow: https://twitter.com/ArmyASAALT
• Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asa-alt

And stay in touch with USAASC!

• Like: www.facebook.com/usaasc
• Follow: www.twitter.com/usaasc
• Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/company/usaasc
• Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usaasc
• YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/usaasc

The second in a series, ASA(ALT) at Work, which looks into ASA(ALT) organizations, what they do and where they do it.

Led by Chérie A. Smith and headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, PEO EIS is the Army’s home for information technology (IT) networks and business systems. Leading more than 3,000 personnel, Smith manages approximately $3.5 billion per year in support of all 10 combatant commands, and also aids foreign military sales. The PEO comprises 37 product offices and 71 acquisition programs for Army and DOD communications, logistics, medical, finance, personnel, training and procurement operations. In short, PEO EIS connects the Army, supporting Soldiers worldwide.

Q: WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT PEO EIS?

• From recruitment to retirement, home station to foxhole, our systems support Soldiers every day around the world making sure they’re ready to fight tonight.
• We are the Army’s trusted network and software acquisition professionals.
• We believe that the Soldier is the centerpiece of everything we do.
• We support the Total Army and serve as a committed teammate.
• We ensure that the Army’s networks, logistics, human resources, finance, business systems and cyber defense support anything a Soldier and the Army need to do the job, every day.
• We get Soldiers to the fight, support the fight and bring them home safe.

TAKING STOCK
Soldiers work with the Automated Movement and Identification Solutions (AMIS) system developed by PEO EIS. AMIS combines the capabilities of the Radio Frequency In-Transit Visibility system and the Transportation Coordinators – Automated Information for Movements System II to automate planning, coordination, execution and tracking of unit deployment, movement and sustainment, assisting DOD in improving asset visibility worldwide. (Photo courtesy of PEO EIS)

Q: WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST SUCCESS?

Smith: “The partnerships we’ve forged with our key Army stakeholders. They are investing in the way forward and helping us lay out that future. Having those advocates that understand the value we provide and are willing to speak on our behalf is critical for us to be successful.”

Q: WHAT IS THE BIGGEST DATA CHALLENGE FOR PEO EIS?

Smith: “Our challenge is about communicating the complexity of the Army’s data landscape. The fact that it’s being discussed by our senior leaders is something I’m really proud to see. When it comes to the Army’s data, there is no panacea. There’s no quick fix. You’ve got to do the hard work, and we’re ready to take that on.”

Q: WHAT WOULD BE A SUCCESS STORY FOR PEO EIS, IN TERMS OF DATA?

Smith: “To me, the success is all about the end user, the operator: if we can get them the data they need, in the time they need it, to allow them to make the right decisions, whatever that may be—medical, operational, maintenance.”

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT SOLDIERS TO KNOW ABOUT PEO EIS?

Smith:

• “The scope of what we do. We want to eliminate duplicated effort, so part of that is just building awareness of what we’re doing.
• “The programs we have that they can leverage. Our enterprise solutions, the hardware and software contract vehicles they can use, common platforms.
• “This is a great place to be for acquisition professionals! If you’re someone who likes a challenge, it’s here. If you want high-visibility projects, they’re here. We’re focused on talent management and leader development, and that benefits our workforce as well.”

SOLDIER TOUCH POINTS Brig. Gen. Yesenia R. Roque, assistant director for Army National Guard Personnel and Talent Management, discusses IPPS-A with Virginia National Guard Soldiers during an April 6 visit to the 116th Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Staunton, Virginia. Virginia is the second state to conduct initial fielding of IPPS-A, developed by PEO EIS and designed to integrate personnel, pay and talent management capabilities in a single system for all Army components. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Saul Rosa)

Q: WHAT ARE YOUR PRIORITIES AND GOALS?

We are working on four specific priorities with strategic goals.

• Talent management – The right people in the right place at the right time.
• Stakeholder management – Building and maintaining relationships.
• Enterprise resource planning (ERP) integration – Integrated and innovative ERP systems.
• Network integration – Network modernization, cyber security operations and enterprise solutions.

Q: WHAT ARE YOUR RECENT WINS?

We are rolling out the Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army, the Army’s new comprehensive human resources system that has subsumed the Standard Installation and Division Personnel Reporting System.

The Product Manager for Defensive Cyber Operations opened C-RAPID, a collaborative “forge” between Army IT, academia and industry partners that allows cyber troops to test emerging technologies to address cyber threats.

Our Allied Information Technology program celebrated a major milestone on March 12. Armed Forces Ukraine, along with Allied Information Technology, hosted the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch; Ukraine’s deputy minister of defense, Oleg Shevchuk, and the chief of defense forces, Viktor Muzhenko; at a ceremony commemorating the transition of responsibility for various mission command, cybersecurity and defense business system capabilities valued at nearly $25 million. These assets have been implemented by Army IT in Ukraine, under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative over the past three years.

The Project Manager for Defensive Cyber Operations has developed a prototype deployable defensive cyber system that can be easily transported in the overhead storage compartment of a commercial airline. This is a vast improvement over the larger systems used previously, and enables much faster deployment with better flexibility and capability.

In conjunction with the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, PEO EIS is fielding the Inflatable Satellite Antenna on the Korean peninsula. The antenna is a versatile, lightweight improvement to an existing mobile satellite dish (the Combat Service Support Very Small Aperture Terminal), and is easier to move, faster to set up and provides more flexibility to operators. (For more information, see the Faces of the Force profile of Capt. Zachary Schofield)

We are addressing the Army’s data problem through our Army Leader Dashboard initiative, providing a way for senior leaders to access and visualize the Army’s troves of data. (For more information, see Creating Insight-Driven Decisions)

This article is published in the Summer 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
Subscribe

The Army needs to embrace advanced manufacturing at the beginning of new system development to surpass potential foes.

by Dr. Alexis Lasselle Ross

In the future, advanced manufacturing techniques like 3D printing could allow Soldiers to replace parts for systems and equipment almost at the point of need. Back home, the use of artificial intelligence and robotics on the factory floor could streamline and optimize the manufacturing process, saving time and other resources. New, innovative weapon systems, produced using a variety of advanced manufacturing methods and materials, could give Soldiers superior capabilities necessary to defeat rapidly advancing near-peer adversaries.

But to fully realize these benefits, the Army must embrace advanced manufacturing at the beginning of the acquisition process and incorporate it throughout the life cycle of the system.

FROM CONCEPT TO CAPABILITY

POINT OF NEED
Advanced manufacturing could revolutionize the logistics footprint on the battlefield through on-demand fabrication of parts close to the point of need. Such a capability would reduce the large number of parts that would have to be stored and transported around the globe. (Photo by RIA–JMTC)

Recently, we’ve heard quite a bit about additive manufacturing—better known as 3D printing—because it’s one of the most understandable and prevalent forms of advanced manufacturing. However, advanced manufacturing is much broader than just 3D printing; it includes both new ways to manufacture existing products and new products resulting from advances in technology. (See Optimized by Design.) It often combines new manufacturing techniques with traditional methods; for example, 3D-printing a part and then using machining and heat treating to get the desired surface finish and material properties, all the while using robotic monitoring for quality control.

Advanced manufacturing has the ability to fundamentally change the way we design, deliver, produce and sustain our capabilities. It can allow us to modernize and innovate our systems like never before. It can decrease design limitations imposed by traditional manufacturing methods and allow us to more easily produce complex parts. Let’s look at an example. Traditionally, an aircraft engine component may be the combination of 200 parts that are welded together into a complex design. But what if, instead of welding together 200 distinct, intricate parts, we could 3D-print the whole component as one piece? We’re going from 200 parts to one, eliminating all fusion points—that are really possible failure points—thereby increasing reliability.

It can also enable the production of specialty or tailored items. Helmets, for example, could be customized to fit individual Soldiers. These capabilities will fundamentally change how we design a component; instead of designing around the confines of traditional manufacturing, engineers can concentrate on the design that achieves the greatest operational performanceIt can also allow us to innovate with unparalleled speed. Using advanced methods, we can quickly produce prototypes, determine if they are viable, and transition them to production faster than ever before.

But to optimize our use of advanced manufacturing, we have to change our thinking about what materials we use as well. That same aircraft engine component we just discussed, which was designed and manufactured using advanced methods, could also be generated using—you guessed it—advanced materials. The use of certain composite materials, such as spun ceramic, allows for components that are lighter than ever before—which is especially critical for things like aircraft components and Soldiers’ equipment.

Beyond the new methods and materials used to produce this component, advanced techniques can also transform the industrial operations at the facility where the component is produced. Combining artificial intelligence, robotics, sensors and a digital network on the factory floor enables the connection between machines, products and people, leading to efficiencies like improved quality control, predictive maintenance or automatic ordering of supplies. It also allows people to monitor the entire process, from individual machine performance to the environmental conditions in the factory—you can digitally follow a part from raw material to final production.

MODERNIZATION AND READINESS

Advanced manufacturing also provides the promise of production scalability. Producing parts or systems using traditional manufacturing methods requires a significant amount of time and money to establish or restart a production line. Using advanced methods, we can quickly establish a line and increase throughput with one company or by contracting with multiple companies. As a result, advanced manufacturing has the potential to lower the barrier of entry for small businesses because there’s no need for large space and machinery, which is usually required for a large production line.

On top of the modernization benefits just outlined, Dr. Bruce D. Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)), is excited about the possibilities these technologies present for Army readiness. If employed to the maximum extent, advanced manufacturing could revolutionize our battlefield logistics footprint through on-demand fabrication of parts close to the point of need, thus reducing the large number of parts that would have to be stored and transported around the globe. Advanced manufacturing can also be used to address obsolete parts, hard-to-get parts, and diminishing sources of supply. Previously, in urgent situations, innovative solutions were put together with things like duct tape and wire, but now with 3D printers, better solutions can be produced.

Currently, the Army is assessing the value and utility of advanced manufacturing in tactical environments through a limited user experiment that began in April 2018. The experiment consists of adding 3D scanning and 3D polymer printing capabilities to a select set of 10 metal-working and machining shop sets (MWMSS) fielded by the Product Manager for Sets, Kits, Outfits and Tools in the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. The MWMSS system already contains a robust point-of-need metal-working and machining capability, and adding advanced and additive manufacturing tools is expected to increase its ability to address urgent user needs at the tactical edge. Feedback from the experiment will be used to inform future requirements for forward capabilities in advanced manufacturing and the value to the warfighter.

From innovative methods and materials, optimized designs and increased performance to improved industrial operations and enhanced battlefield logistics, advanced manufacturing will deliver on two of the secretary of the Army’s top priorities: modernization and readiness.

POLICY

To implement and fully realize the potential of advanced manufacturing, we are developing an Army advanced manufacturing policy that is scheduled for release in fall 2019. At its core, the policy will direct Army organizations to consider and incorporate advanced manufacturing in all aspects of a systems’ life cycle, from early design and development through sustainment.

Through this policy, we are attempting to move the entire acquisition system toward advanced manufacturing, from the development of requirements, to system design, to production and sustainment. This endeavor will undoubtedly require close coordination and partnership from stakeholders involved across the life cycle of a system. To that end, the policy will apply to the requirements, acquisition and sustainment communities—the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC), the Office of the ASA(ALT) and the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC). We have been working very closely with AFC and AMC, as well as with other key stakeholders, to ensure that the policy takes a holistic approach to address advanced manufacturing in the entire life cycle of a system, and it will be effectively implemented in the coming years.

MANAGING IP AND 3D
Printing parts at the point of need during sustainment will need a good approach to handle intellectual property—like a fee-based agreement, or “pay-to-print” concept, whereby the Army could pay a fee to the company that holds the IP every time a part is printed. (U.S. Army photo)

There are several key elements underpinning the new policy:

Strategic Investment

First, the Army and its industry partners must actively invest in advanced manufacturing. While transitioning to advanced methods and materials may require significant resources, it will play a critical role in our ability to modernize our weapon systems and industrial base. Others, including near-peer adversaries, are already ahead of us in this endeavor. In order to keep pace, we must begin making investments now. To that end, the policy requires that a holistic, threat-based strategy be developed for the investment in and application of advanced methods and materials. Importantly, executing such a strategy will require partnership from the private sector.

Currently, companies across industry are employing advanced manufacturing in different ways. Some have fully embraced advanced manufacturing and are incorporating it into production lines, while others are developing an additive manufacturing capability to sell as a service to other companies and the government. We currently are engaging with the breadth of industry to determine the best way to mature and leverage advanced manufacturing and incorporate it into weapon systems.

Systemic Adoption

Second, we must incorporate advanced manufacturing upfront and throughout a systems’ life cycle. Advanced manufacturing methods and materials will have the largest impact and will provide the greatest return when they are integrated early in system design. As such, the policy directs that advanced manufacturing be incorporated into the upfront design of systems when analysis indicates it offers the best value to the government. To facilitate this, AFC will write capability requirements based on performance and readiness gains made possible by advanced manufacturing methods and materials. For example, harkening back to the aircraft engine component I discussed earlier, the reduced weight of critical aircraft parts could be a performance gain that the requirements and acquisition communities seek. Additionally, AFC is now responsible for the laboratories and technical centers within the Army, so they will be developing new manufacturing techniques and materials for use in weapon systems. ASA(ALT) program offices will be responsible for working with industry to incorporate advanced manufacturing into system design and development. As this is the phase where contracts and agreements are entered into with industry, this is where the rubber meets the road.

And on the sustainment side, AMC will be responsible for incorporating advanced methods and materials into already fielded systems when readiness challenges or cost-benefit analyses call for it. AMC will integrate advanced manufacturing into supply chain processes and provide support to tactical units procuring advanced manufacturing equipment and services. AMC has recently established the Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, which will serve as the focal point for the application of advanced manufacturing in sustainment matters. They are making great strides in using advanced manufacturing to address diminishing sources of supply and obsolescent parts for fielded systems.

Thoughtful Use

Finally, we must deliberately and thoughtfully leverage advanced manufacturing. It is worth noting that advanced manufacturing is not appropriate for all systems and all situations, and that certain considerations must be made before its use. The policy takes care to provide flexibility to Army organizations to determine whether to use advanced manufacturing, based on cost-benefit analysis and anticipated value to the government. Incorporating advanced manufacturing into already fielded systems takes time, money and significant engineering analysis, but in some cases, it is warranted to increase readiness. Further, the policy requires that any readiness and performance benefits offered by advanced manufacturing be balanced with warfighter safety, which is always of the utmost importance. For example, only organizations that are authorized and trained to work with explosives may fabricate or modify such items.

Lastly, and importantly, when pursuing advanced manufacturing, we must carefully consider intellectual property matters. Consistent with the Army’s recently released intellectual property policy, program offices must plan early for the intellectual property required to support advanced manufacturing, negotiate with industry for the necessary—not all—intellectual property and for the license rights to use it, and communicate these requirements early and often. With the transformation of engineering and manufacturing, we must also look to new ways to manage intellectual property. For example, if we are considering 3D-printing parts close to the point of need during sustainment, a good approach to handling intellectual property might be a fee-based agreement, or “pay-to-print.” Instead of spending a lot of money for an extensive intellectual property license, the Army could pay a reasonable fee to the company that holds the intellectual property every time a part is printed.

This policy represents the first Armywide step toward truly leveraging the immense potential of advanced manufacturing. We will look to work with partners across the Army, DOD and industry as we implement the policy in the coming months and years. 

CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, these technologies will fundamentally change the way the Army designs, develops, produces and sustains systems. The Army has begun and will continue to incorporate these advanced methods and materials into all aspects of the system development life cycle. The technologies involved in advanced manufacturing techniques are complex and rapidly evolving, and commercial industry and our adversaries are already well on their way.

We must start down the same path as quickly as possible to maintain our readiness and overmatch. The future of the Army’s readiness and modernization lies with advanced manufacturing. 

For more information, go to https://www.asaalt.army.mil/About-Us/Deputies-Assistant-Secretary-of-the-Army/

Dr. ALEXIS LASSELLE ROSS serves as deputy assistant secretary of the Army for strategy and acquisition reform. She is the principal adviser to ASA(ALT), responsible for the design and implementation of acquisition reform and modernization initiatives. She holds a Ph.D. in public policy from George Mason University, an M.S. in national security and strategic studies from the Naval War College and a B.A. in international relations from Bucknell University.

This article is published in the Fall 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

FROM THE ARMY
ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE
DR. BRUCE D. JETTE

The future force modernization enterprise has a vision to streamline acquisition, and a way to get there.

Getting the right equipment and systems to Soldiers at the right time is not only essential to supporting our force today, but will also be essential in supporting the future force. The Army must prepare for the future while we continue to build readiness. How we manage system life cycles and integrate the design, production and sustainment processes into those life cycles will drive the Army’s ability to modernize its capabilities and support multidomain operations.

The future force modernization enterprise is a concept created to change the Army’s approach to modernization and better employ our resources. It comprises the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)), the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC) and the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC); it also extends to several other organizations, including major Army commands, such as the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and across the Army, DOD and the joint community. In our modernization efforts, we also rely on external partners in industry, academia and, finally, our allies and partners.

This enterprise concept describes the Army’s expertise, organizations and infrastructure for rapidly and effectively developing and delivering the future force—the key is synchronization through inclusivity. Each of the organizations is focused on a particular portion of modernization, enabling them collectively to concentrate resources and expertise on every aspect of modernization through a synchronized effort. The concept reduces redundancy and makes use of a key imperative—unity of effort—to help ensure close collaboration.

This unity of effort means multiple organizations are working together in distinct but complementary ways toward the same objective. This drives early teaming among requirements development, research and development, test and evaluation, and the acquisition community to support rapid innovation through Soldier touch points, demonstrations, prototyping, experimentation and analysis. This process will enable faster requirements validation and easier technology transition through the “valley of death,” to support seamless progression into the acquisition life cycle. (Valley of death refers to the notorious difficulty of turning a promising technology into a fielded program.)

Here’s how it works:

• AFC brings together modernization organizations previously scattered across the Army. It creates concepts for how Army forces will fight in the future and experiments to inform requirements that drive the acquisition process.
• ASA(ALT) acquires and fields materiel solutions that are sufficiently mature and of the most value to Soldiers at the speed of relevance.
• AMC will take those materiel solutions through the sustainment and divestiture processes.

Blue Grass Army Depot staff pack renovated rounds for shipment in March. AMC’s role in the future force modernization enterprise is to take materiel solutions through the sustainment and divestiture processes. (Photo by Mark Henry, AMC)

MODERNIZATION ENTERPRISE

AFC is driving support for critical capabilities that need to be developed to ensure overmatch on the future battlefield through concept development, experimentation, modeling and simulation, organizational design, requirements determination and materiel solution validation. At the same time, ASA(ALT) continues its role of oversight, resource management, policy and, particularly with respect to the acquisition function, control of the broader materiel development and sustainment processes.

ASA(ALT) takes the concept and requirements from AFC and carries them through the engineering development and manufacturing, design and building, and developmental testing processes. Then, we move these materiel solutions into production prototyping, operational testing and fielding equipment.

The establishment of AFC affords an opportunity to create a more collaborative working environment between its cross-functional teams and ASA(ALT)’s program executive offices (PEOs) to bring system concepts and designs to life. Each of the eight cross-functional teams has a primary PEO on the team, and each of the more than 30 signature systems within the cross-functional teams has a program manager representing the PEO on the team as well. This close working relationship between the cross-functional teams and the PEOs is extremely valuable: AFC and the cross-functional teams participate in deliberation over acquisition strategies, while the acquisition community contributes to the operational requirements development process—and everyone retains their own responsibilities. This kind of collaboration is at the heart of the enterprise and is critical to its success.

To effectively modernize the Army over the next decade and a half, the enterprise needs to develop future concepts that drive our materiel requirements, with a supporting architecture that ensures interoperability. We must realize information transparency that enables data-driven decisions by Army leadership and achieves an enterprise that is able to move and flex at the speed of advancing technology. In other words, the Army needs intelligence-driven requirements, concept-driven requirements, a system-architecture approach and integration of all of those things. Part of how we support that will be with the acquisition data domain.

In my last Army AL&T column, “The Zen of Data,” I discussed managing data holistically to enable better decision-making, which is how the domain with be employed within the enterprise concept. The Army needs to be able to visualize its data, and I have to ensure that data is authoritative and accurate before allowing other parts of the modernization enterprise to make decisions on how to use it. The domain will help achieve a unified data environment for “vision, decision and precision” from requirements development to divestiture.

Self-indicating colorimetric response materials, embedded into objects such as this microchip, can instantly alert warfighters to contaminated items. The early teaming that is possible through the future force modernization enterprise supports faster requirements validation and easier technology transition through the valley of death into the acquisition life cycle. (Photo by Shawn Nesaw, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) – Chemical Biological Center)

CONCLUSION

The Army has reorganized our entire modernization enterprise for greater speed, efficiency and effectiveness. This includes improving the way we do business. We are beginning to see the intended benefits of our efforts—unchanging priorities; less bureaucracy; sufficient investment; and greater access to innovation—to make us better stewards for the warfighter and the taxpayer.

I am proud that the ASA(ALT) organization has moved out quickly to enable initiatives designed to meet the Army’s modernization priorities. Most importantly, we need to reduce the acquisition timeline to ensure Soldiers have the weapons, equipment and tools they need, when they need them to deploy, fight and win future conflicts.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

The third in a series, ASA(ALT) at Work, which looks into ASA(ALT) organizations, what they do and where they do it.

PEO Soldier’s mission is to rapidly deliver agile, adaptive, leading-edge Soldier capabilities to provide combat overmatch today and be more lethal tomorrow. Commanded by Brig. Gen. Anthony Potts, PEO Soldier will be releasing the first product partnered with the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC)—the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle – Binoculars (ENVG-B). In addition to partnering with AFC on capabilities such as Next Generation Squad Weapons and the Integrated Visual Augmentation System, PEO Soldier delivers 130 programs of record and 253 products and non-programs of record, such as essential capabilities from body armor, helmets, sensors and lasers, to legacy weapon systems.

Headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, PEO Soldier comprises some 1,438 personnel—military, government civilians and contractors providing systems engineering and technical assistance support.

WHAT SHOULD WE KNOW ABOUT PEO SOLDIER?

PEO Soldier provides the processes and tools to ensure a collaborative, iterative Soldier-centered approach to delivering integrated capability to Soldiers and squads.

HOW DOES PEO SOLDIER SUPPORT THE FUTURE FORCE?

Our focus is making sure that Soldiers have enhanced capabilities in lethality, mobility, survivability, situational awareness and sustainment. We treat the Soldier as an integrated weapon system and the squad as an integrated combat platform, from their uniforms to their personal protection to their weapons. Soldiers of the future will have adaptive, agile, modular and scalable equipment that will be optimized for the mission without sacrificing capability or performance.

SHOWING THE WAY
Sgt. Gabrielle Hurd of the New Hampshire Army National Guard shows her team the route they will take on an overnight hike to the summit of Mount Monadnock, New Hampshire, during an ENVG-B Soldier touch point July 10-12. PEO Soldier incorporates Soldier feedback into the ENVG-B product and many others, which helps the Army integrate the current needs of Soldiers with the Army’s future, multidomain battlefield. (Photo courtesy of PEO Soldier Public Affairs)

HOW HAVE YOUR CHALLENGES CHANGED?

The Army has been asked to deliver capability sooner by assuming prudent risk and leveraging existing and new authorities. We are addressing these challenges and supporting the Army’s priorities by leveraging middle-tier acquisition authorities and using other-transaction authority contract vehicles in prototyping and delivering key capabilities, such as the Integrated Visual Augmentation System and the Next Generation Squad Weapon.

WHAT’S AHEAD FOR PEO SOLDIER?

A key enabler for taking a systems approach to the Soldier and squad and treating them as integrated combat platforms is the Adaptive Squad Architecture (See related story, “The Squad as an Integrated Platform”) This architecture will be foundational for all close-combat capabilities by defining standards and interfaces and allocating size, weight and power across the subcomponents. This will enable the assessment and optimization of new capabilities across doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and facilities, and take advantage of the resources at integration facilities being established by PEO Soldier, the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team and the Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Benning, Georgia. This iterative, Soldier-centered approach ensures that we deliver capability that achieves overmatch and incorporates the latest state-of-the-art innovative ideas from Soldiers and industry.

BIGGEST CHALLENGE?

Our greatest challenge is delivering on our promise to our Soldiers to deliver next-generation combat capability. Working closely with the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team, we are planning to deliver the ENVG-B in September 2019, and over the next few years we are planning to deliver the Next Generation Squad Weapon and the Integrated Visual Augmentation System. These are extremely accelerated acquisitions, and each of these cross-functional team programs will deliver significantly enhanced capability over current capability and leverage state-of-the-art technology to achieve overmatch. PEO Soldier oversees the execution of these critical programs through close partnership with AFC, the Soldier Lethality Cross-Functional Team and the rest of the Army materiel enterprise.

ALL SYSTEMS GO
A Soldier does a check with the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) and his compass before moving through a land navigation task during a Soldier touch point March 17-29 at Fort Pickett, Virginia. IVAS is designed to increase Soldier lethality, mobility and greater situational awareness by providing enhanced night and thermal vision capabilities, map displays, and data collection capabilities. (Photo courtesy of PEO Soldier Public Affairs)

BIGGEST SUCCESS?

Our biggest successes are our people and the collaboration across the Army materiel enterprise. We have an amazing civilian, military and contractor workforce that delivers day in and day out, despite manpower shortfalls and other constraints. We deliver literally millions of pieces of kit every year that help Soldiers accomplish their missions and come home alive.

Within the new Army materiel enterprise, we have seen a significant increase in collaboration, including cross-functional teams, the science and technology community, the user community, the life cycle and sustainment commands, and industry. This collaboration has led to streamlined requirements, accelerated acquisition strategies, and well-funded and well-supported programs across the stakeholder community. It is proving to be a good model.

WHAT ROLE DO SOLDIERS PLAY IN PEO SOLDIER?

As our name indicates, Soldiers are a part of everything we do. Soldiers work on our acquisition teams, provide needed feedback during Soldier touch points, and are ultimately the motivating factor in why our workforce is passionate about developing enhanced capabilities. With the iterative, Soldier-centered design approach that’s in place across our organization, Soldiers play a pivotal role in ensuring that we deliver the most lethal and effective force ever.

QUICK CHANGE
Sgt. Evan Fuller, a signal adviser with 54th Security Force Assistance Brigade, practices transition drills in which a Soldier fires an M4 carbine and then changes to the M17 pistol while continuing to engage his target. Soldiers play a pivotal role in PEO Soldier’s iterative development process. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Carmen Fleischmann, Florida National Guard Public Affairs)

This article is published in the Fall 2019 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

ARMY DACM OFFICE UPDATES

2019 DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE AWARDS

The Army was well represented in this year’s Defense Acquisition Awards!

Army acquisition individuals and teams were recognized in such categories as Defense Acquisition Workforce Individual Achievement, Software Innovation Team, Flexibility in Contracting, and Workforce Development Innovation. Not to mention, an Army team was awarded the esteemed David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award. These prestigious awards recognize demonstrated, outstanding achievements and best practices in Department of Defense acquisition.

Our Army winners are listed below.  A full list of defense acquisition award winners is posted on the Army AL&T News site at https://asc.army.mil/web/news-army-well-represented-in-workforce-achievement-awards/. Read the complete 2019 David Packard award article in Army AL&T News at https://asc.army.mil/web/news-peo-soldier-team-wins-2019-packard-award/.

David Packard Excellence in Acquisition Award
Sub Compact Weapon Team, Product Manager Individual Weapons, Project Manager Soldier Weapons, PEO Soldier

Workforce Development Innovation Award (Large Organization)
CCDC – Ground Vehicle Systems Center, Warren, Michigan

Individual Achievement Award Winners
– Acquisition in an Expeditionary Environment
MAJ Eugene Choi, ACC
– Cost Estimating
Ms. Nicole Gulla, JPEO A&A
– Production, Quality and Manufacturing
Mr. James Clark, CCDC
– Program Management
COL David Warnick, PEO M&S
– Requirements Management
COL Sean McMurry, JPEO CBRN
– Science and Technology Manager
LTC Mara Kreishman-Deitrick, AFC
– Software (new category this year!)
Mr. George Senger, PEO C3T

It is with great pride that we recognize the accomplishments of our acquisition professionals for their commitment to excellence and contributions in support of the Warfighter.  The awards ceremony was held on Oct. 29, 2019 at the Pentagon Hall of Heroes. A separate ceremony recognizing the 2019 David Packard award winners will be held on Monday, Dec. 2 at the Pentagon.

For more Army acquisition award winners, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/acquisition-awards/acquisition-wall-of-fame/ .

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE FY21 SELECTEES OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR CENTRALIZED SELECTION BOARD!

In FY15, the Army Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM) initiated a civilian only centralized product director selection board as a talent management initiative to identify high performers with leadership potential and key program management skills to lead many of our acquisition programs.

The Product & Project Director (PD) concept is to centrally select high performing Army acquisition civilian program management personnel at the GS-14 and GS-15/broadband equivalent level to serve in PD positions within the Program Executive Office (PEO) structure. The DACM’s objective is to direct personnel assignments within the PEOs to facilitate the placement of high performing civilian personnel for these PD positions. This central management of civilian PDs is the core of the civilian talent management concept.

FY21 PRINCIPAL LIST SELECTEES:
Kevin Curry, PEO Enterprise Information Systems (PEO EIS)
Matthew Maier, PEO Command, Control and Communications-Tactical (PEO C3T)

 FY21 ALTERNATE LIST SELECTEES:
James Childress, PEO Missiles and Space (PEO M&S)
Timothy Hale, PEO EIS
James Hallinan, PEO M&S
Michael McGarvey, Missile Defense Agency
Craig Riedel, PEO Combat Support & Combat Service Support
Dennis Teefy, PEO C3T
Timothy Vinson, PEO Aviation

MILITARY RECRUITING NEWS

Supporting Soldiers and Expanding the Army Acquisition Corps

In mid-September, a joint military recruiting effort took place during Branch Week at the U.S. Military Academy, between the Joint Program Executive Office Armaments and Ammunition and the Army DACM Office. Supporting Dr. Bruce Jette’s (ASAALT, AAE) initiative to expand the Army Acquisition Corps and broaden support of Soldiers’ careers, the recruiting effort highlighted key areas such as promotion opportunities, tuition assistance, certification, developing leadership skills, and training with industry assignments.

See an event photo and read the original article, authored by Edward Lopez, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command-Armaments Center at https://www.army.mil/article/229079/.

DECEMBER 31^ST IS THE DEADLINE FOR FY19 SENIOR RATER POTENTIAL EVALUATIONS (SRPE). 

Army DACM policy requires annual completion of a Senior Rater Potential Evaluation (SRPE). On Oct. 1, 2019 the Army DACM Office released the SRPE to all raters of Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) personnel via CAPPMIS at https://rda.altess.army.mil/camp/.

For guidance on the completion of the SRPE, including helpful hints and system guides, please go to the dedicated SRPE website at https://asc.army.mil/web/senior-rater-potential-evaluation/  and the SRPE site in CAPPMIS, under the SRPE tab, and then click on the “SRPE Info” link.

If you have questions related to the SRPE process, please contact your supervisor or your Organization’s Acquisition Point of Contact (OAP).

See a listing of OAPs at https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-640236.

DACM POLICY UPDATES

The Army DACM Office has been busy working to improve career development opportunities for the Army Acquisition Workforce.  Below are recently signed policies that impact you – find them all in the DACM Office Policy Library at https://asc.army.mil/web/alt-workforce-policy-procedure/.

ARMY ACQUISITION NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICER ADVANCED CIVIL SCHOOLING APPLICATION, SELECTION, AND ATTENDANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Effective October 10, 2019, this memorandum establishes policy and procedures for application to the Advanced Civil Schooling (ACS) program and its selection of applicants.  This memo applies to all active component Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 51C Contracting Non-Commissioned officers (NCOs).

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/final-nco-acs-policy-signed-20191010-cas/.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY (DAU) TRAINING POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Effective October 10, 2019, this memorandum covers many topics with respect to DAU training and establishes Army DACM policy and procedures for the application, selection, funding, quota management, prerequisite training, TDY procedures, travel expenses, no-show policy, and cancellation of Defense Acquisition University (DAU) training.

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/final-dau-training-policy-and-procedures-signed-20191010-cas/.

ARMY ACQUISITION TRAINING WITH INDUSTRY POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Effective October 8, 2019, this memorandum establishes responsibilities and outlines policy and procedures for Active Component Functional Area 51 (FA51) officer participation in the Department of the Army’s Training with Industry Program.

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-policytrainingwithindustry/.

REVISED – DA ACQUISITION CAREER FIELD CERTIFICATION POLICY

Effective October 10, 2019, this revised policy ensures the continued professionalism of an Army acquisition workforce. The memo provides guidance for managing Acquisition Career Field (ACF) certification to ensure the certification application, decision, and appeal processes are consistent across the Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) and performed in accordance with applicable regulations.

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/army-dacm-acf-certification-policy-memorandum/

FY20 ARMY ACQUISITION WORKFORCE STANDARDS

Effective October 3, 2019, this annual memorandum from the Army Director, Acquisition Career Management, provides guidance that sets the standards for Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) professionals and their parent organizations to achieve in order to comply with Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) statutory requirements and DACM policies.

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-memo-fy20-army-acq-workforce-stnds/.

RECOMMENDED CLP MEMORANDUMS FOR EACH ACQUISITION CAREER FIELD

This collection of individually signed memos from the Army Acquisition Functional Leaders (AAFLs) recommends functionally focused areas in which to earn continuous learning points (CLPs) based on the AAFL’s designated Acquisition Career Field (ACF).

Read the full memo at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/clp-recommendation-memorandums-busce-busfm-con-eng-fe-icpm-lcl-pqm-pur-stm-te-20191015/.

ACQUISITION TRAINING, EDUCATION AND LEADER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

DCELP – The Defense Civilian Emerging Leader Program

Congratulations to the Year Group 2020 DCELP Selectees!

The Army DACM Office is pleased to announce the Army Acquisition Civilians who were selected for the upcoming Defense Civilian Emerging Leader Program (DCELP) cohort.

DCELP is the premier DOD leader development program for GS-07 through GS-12 (or equivalent payband) civilian personnel.  DCELP develops entry- to mid-career level civilians in a full range of competencies needed to lead self and to lead teams and projects.  You can read more about this exciting program at https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/dcelp/.

The selectees for Year Group 20 are:

WELCOME, NEW FY20 EMERGING ENTERPRISE LEADERS (EEL) 

Congratulations to the 14 new, FY20 inductees of the EEL program! 

WELCOME TO COHORT 2:

• Moriah Bartlett, U.S. Army Medical Command
• Mark Block, PEO EIS
• Matthew Eady, PEO MS
• Marta Garner, U.S. Army Sustainment Command (ASC)
• Charley Gulac, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center
• Shontel Hamilton, TACOM
• Shelly Hart, PEO Aviation
• Tiffany Jones, TACOM
• Michael P. Nguyen, U.S. Army Futures Command
• Krystal Robinson, ASC
• Michelle Roden, PEO MS
• Phillip Schnebelt, PEO GCS
• Sara Stein, PEO GCS
• Rachel Tomlinson, PEO IEW&S

 The EEL initiative is a one-year developmental program providing aspiring leaders at GS-11 and GS-12 (or broadband equivalents) within the program executive offices with specialized junior leader development. During the year, participants learn approaches for addressing a range of workplace issues including negotiating, crucial conservations, influencing others, adapting leadership, and ethics. Each participant is afforded the opportunity for a 60- to 90-day developmental assignment and professional coaching.

To read about FY19 EEL participant’s testimonials in the October 2019 DACM Newsletter, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-newsletter/.

For more information about this program, go to the EEL page at https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/emerging-enterprise-leader-eel-program/.

The “IDEAL” Development Course for our Army Acquisition Workforce

The Inspiring and Developing Excellence in Acquisition Leaders (IDEAL) program is doing just as its title states!  Since the Army DACM Office offered this program three years ago, the feedback from students participating in IDEAL has been overwhelmingly positive.  IDEAL is a leadership development program for Army Acquisition Workforce (AAW) GS-12/13 (or broadband equivalent) professionals with identified leadership and supervisory potential. IDEAL prepares mid-career professionals for positions where they will lead people, teams and other workgroups.

Participants in the Warren, Michigan cohort of the FY19 IDEAL program took part in a field trip to Sterling Heights, MI on Sept. 19 to visit General Dynamics Land Systems; providing the students with unique lessons on leadership, innovation, mentoring, understanding of workplace cultures, and acquisition products.

Participants in the Washington, D.C. IDEAL cohort also ventured into the field to observe acquisition and leadership from a special perspective.  During their Oct. 2 trip to Arlington National Cemetery, students toured the grounds and spoke with personnel who manage the multiple contracts that not only sustain, repair, and modernize the cemetery but keep it operational with some 6,500 burials per year.

Read all about the trip to Arlington National Cemetery at https://asc.army.mil/web/news-acquisition-professionals-visit-arlington-national-cemetery/.

Read about the recent FY19 graduates of the IDEAL program here: https://asc.army.mil/web/news-acquisition-professionals-complete-ideal-program/.

And congratulations to the 65 AAW civilians who were selected for the FY20 offering of IDEAL! Who are these up-and-coming leaders?  Find out at https://asc.army.mil/web/news-congratulations-to-the-fy20-ideal-selectees/

Thinking about participating in the IDEAL 2021 program? 

Although the year group 2021 cohort application window for the IDEAL program does not open until June of 2020, it’s never too early to begin preparing your application package.  Putting together a successful application packet takes time and effort.  That’s why we’ve developed a guidance sheet outlining a few pointers on what can make a successful application.  We asked members of the IDEAL program’s application review board what they look for in selecting a candidate for the program, and they identified some common characteristics that can help you develop an application that may put you ahead of the competition!  Find out what the judges said by going to our guidance sheet at https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/inspiring-and-developing-excellence-in-acquisition-leaders-ideal/ and scroll down the page to the “HOW TO APPLY” section. Please keep in mind these are common traits of successful application packages, and do not guarantee acceptance into the program.

TRAINING WITH INDUSTRY

The Training with Industry (TWI) program is growing up and out.  As mandated by Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, the TWI program is tripling in size.  The year-long work-experience program gives top-performing officers and noncommissioned officers extended exposure to industry management techniques, best practices and technological innovations.

In the October Army DACM newsletter, Lt. Col. Olric Wilkins, one of the current TWI participants, shares his TWI experience at Boeing in a “Tracking TWI” article.

To read more about Lt. Col. Wilkins’ TWI experience, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/news-tracking-twi/.

ACQUISITION TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Attention NCOs, 51Cs, and Army Acquisition Workforce civilians!

The Acquisition Tuition Assistance Program (ATAP) application deadline is Nov. 22, 2019.  Get your applications in soon to be considered for this opportunity to receive tuition assistance.  And remember, ATAP is not only a chance to receive funding toward an academic degree, it also funds courses needed toward the requirements of membership in the elite Army Acquisition Corps!  To read about the eligibility requirements and other conditions, refer to the ATAP page at https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/acquisition-tuition-assistance-program/.

SOCOM GHOST PROGRAM

The application window is continuously open for the FY20 U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Ghost Program. This is a unique, broadening opportunity for junior Army acquisition professionals to directly support the mission of delivering Special Operations Forces (SOF) capabilities to downrange warfighters. USSOCOM is primarily looking for high-performing FA-51 acquisition captains and majors (O-3 or O-4) with two to four years of acquisition experience. To apply, or if you have any questions, send an email to ghost-recruiting@socom.mil.

DAU NEWS

New credentialing program from Defense Acquisition University!

Expand your professional skills and open career paths with Defense Acquisition University’s (DAU) new credentialing program.  This October, DAU rolled out a specialized credential program pilot that provides a way to build skills within the Defense Acquisition Workforce to improve job performance.  The credential program was created as a response to workforce feedback that learning is more beneficial closer to the moment of need.  DAU’s credentialing program offers responsive and timely learning experiences that are self-selected, to grow and deepen skills.

These professional credentials will complement, not duplicate, other credentialing programs and do not replace current Level 1 – 3 Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) certification requirements.  Several of the program’s initial credentials are Agile, Digital Engineering, and Services Acquisition.  In February 2020, another credential will be released to assist DoD acquisition professionals manage cybersecurity aspects of their program.

Find additional program details by visiting the Army DACM Office website:  https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-office/dau-credentialing/.

Development Assignment at the Office of Small Business Programs

Are you seeking a developmental and career broadening opportunity to work at Department of Army Headquarters? The Army Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) may be the right fit for you!

Army OSBP seeks one GS-13 through GS-15 acquisition professional to perform 179-day assignment at Army OSBP Headquarters in the Pentagon, Washington, DC. The Army OSBP mission includes advising Army Senior Leaders on small business matters, spearheading initiatives that contribute to expanding the small business industrial base relevant to Army mission priorities, and providing oversight of the small business program executed by over 8,000 professionals worldwide. The assignment includes the opportunity to collaborate with peers in Headquarters Department of the Army and in Army Commands, to work on special projects for the socioeconomic programs described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 19, and to serve as special assistant to the Director, Army OSBP.

Position Title: Procurement Analyst, Contract Specialist, Program Analyst, or Small Business Specialist
Location: Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
Duration: 179 days
Announcement Opening Date: Nov. 5, 2019
Announcement Closing Date: Dec. 5, 2019
Assignment Start Date: January 2020 (exact date to be negotiated)
Funding: Army OSBP will pay for temporary duty (TDY) costs; labor costs are covered by the employee’s organization.
Who May Apply: Army Acquisition Workforce members who meet the following criteria:
Grade Level: Minimum GS-13 or equivalent
Occupational Series: Contracting and Acquisition Career Program 14
Key Attributes: Positive attitude, action oriented, interest in achieving Army priorities through small business utilization.

How to Apply: Submit the following documents in the nomination/application package:
Resume; Statement of Interest (1-page); Command Endorsement
Submit nomination packages to Gayna C. Malcolm-Packnett at gayna.c.malcolm-packnett.civ@mail.mil by 4 p.m. EST on Dec. 5, 2019.
Questions about this opportunity can be directed to Gayna C. Malcolm-Packnett at gayna.c.malcolm-packnett.civ@mail.mil (703) 693-6115.

“FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS!” 

Did you know that you can read all of the great articles published in the ArmyAL&T magazine BEFORE it’s published? Yes, you can! Just go on over to https://asc.army.mil/web/subscribe/ and subscribe today… don’t wait!

SPOTLIGHT ON SUCCESS

This month, we are spotlighting the work of the Army Acquisition Workforce—your chance to highlight the interesting work you or your teammates are doing in support of the warfighter. Don’t be shy; tell us what you’re working on. Fill out a Faces of the Force nomination form and we’ll help get the word out. Details are at https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-submissions/.

Interested in more DACM News?

Read the October 2019 issue of the Army DACM Newsletter at:
https://asc.army.mil/web/dacm-newsletter/.

The DACM Newsletter provides pertinent and timely career development information to the Army Acquisition Workforce; alerting the workforce of new offerings, changes, and opportunities in a one-stop document.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
 Subscribe

The first cohort of Army Acquisition Degree Curriculum 522 is ready to graduate with a Master of Science degree in systems engineering management from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. (Photo by Javier Chagoya, NPS)

As the Army gets a much-needed technological upgrade, the Naval Postgraduate School does its own technological upgrade of graduate education for acquisition professionals.

by John T. Dillard, Col., USA (Ret.)

On Dec. 20, 2019, the first cohort of 30 Army Acquisition Corps officers will graduate from the new degree curriculum, called 522, at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) with a master of science degree in systems engineering management. In addition, most of those graduates will have completed their joint professional military education and Army intermediate-level education at the Naval War College, which has a satellite campus on the same Monterey, California, naval base. Over the course of their graduate studies at NPS, students receive 34 different Defense Acquisition University course equivalencies as a concurrent benefit that saves them valuable time away from the acquisition work that needs to be done.

Those 30 officers can credit their new systems engineering management degrees to Lt. Gen Paul Ostrowski, the principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)) and NPS President Ann Rondeau, Vice Adm. USN (Ret.), who steered the changes to the NPS curriculum in Army acquisition.

It was a big ask. And Ostrowski wasn’t the first principal military deputy to request a technological upgrade to the program. Indeed, his two predecessors also wanted to see change.

Starting in 2011, three successive principal military deputies to the ASA(ALT) had asked for more science, technology, engineering and mathematics in the systems acquisition curricula at NPS, which has been sponsored by the Army since 1991. But it was Ostrowski who really pushed for it to come about in 2017, collaborating closely with Rondeau for implementation.

Despite pushing for the technological upgrade to the NPS graduate education, Ostrowski said it was Rondeau and her systems engineering faculty who were the real change agents. It also took some heavy lifting by the U.S. Army Director, Acquisition Career Management and the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center, as well. Several iterations of combined courses were staffed and modified for optimal composition and sequencing. We had never seen that kind of supporting-supported relationship to bring about educational advancements at NPS. The two flag officers met face-to-face at NPS and immediately struck a partnership for the restructuring. We transformed the curricula from purely organizational dynamics to engineering reasoning applied in science and technology pursuits, while keeping the needed methodologies in contract and program management. Our end goals haven’t changed for the broader objectives of improved critical thinking, enhanced decision-making and a larger professional network among the workforce.

Ostrowski is a 1996 alumnus of NPS, and a former student of mine. As we discussed proposed changes, he told me, “We have to recalibrate our graduate education at NPS.” He wanted NPS to focus more on product than process, emphasizing new capabilities over policies. “We need more technical, less managerial. Our folks already know how to lead people. What they really have to manage in acquisition is complexity,” he said. Recent studies of military capacity to execute national security and defense strategies showed a shrinking technological edge over our near-peer threats.

Realizing there weren’t many officers in the ranks with highly technical or engineering undergraduate degrees, the Army’s academic advisors at NPS observed that specialized degrees like engineering management were the fastest growing graduate education segments in the Army, while non specialized management programs were precipitously declining. Also, the Government Accountability Office specifically cited a lack of systems engineering in many high-profile weapon system program failures; large program cancellations of the past 10 years included Future Combat System, Comanche and Crusader. Everything pointed to a need for more skills in the areas of systems engineering as well as the acquisition essentials of contracting, program management, and test and evaluation. A long-standing degree at NPS was the systems engineering management degree for folks without an engineering undergraduate degree. With that as our foundation, we could easily integrate courses from across the campus.

MORE THAN BUSINESS AS USUAL

Over the next year, the NPS Department of Systems Engineering had the needed courses and faculty members to modernize and satisfy our sponsor’s shifting educational needs. With a palpable sense of urgency coming from the Pentagon and global challenges on the horizon, the Army’s 18-month master’s degree program at NPS reorganized to provide Level III Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) training equivalencies in three different disciplines: systems engineering, program management and contract management; with Level II in test and evaluation.

Ostrowski often says of the new programs, “This is what right looks like!” and added, “President Rondeau understands our current national security environment and helped us forge the path to meeting our new educational requirements.” Since the first cohort, he has sent three additional groups of Army Acquisition Corps officers, arriving twice per year. There’ll be two more groups coming in January and June 2020, so even with the departure of this first large cohort, there’ll be around 80 officers on the ground in Monterey. That’s the biggest Army acquisition footprint ever seen at NPS.

BIGGER AND BETTER

NPS leadership not only welcomed the changes Ostrowski requested, but also helped build a correlated distance learning program, called 722, awarding the same degree, for the Army’s multifunctional career field civilians in acquisition. As a part-time, 24-month degree program, it delivers DAWIA Level III certified training equivalencies in program management and systems engineering along with Level II in test and evaluation and contracting fundamentals. More than 40 acquisition civilians have already enrolled in that program, being centrally selected by the Office of the Army Director of Acquisition Career Management (DACM) within the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center.

One of the striking aspects of both the military resident 522 and civilian distant 722 programs is another technological upgrade—the Capstone Study Project—and how it differs from a traditional master’s thesis paper. Projects are selected by the Army and other services, which “sponsor” (as the client) five-person student teams as they solve real-world problems with a time-phased systems engineering approach. A pair of faculty project advisers is assigned to each team to coach them through the six-month process of architecting solutions. In the end, the clients, the Systems Engineering Department faculty and all of the other Army Acquisition Corps students are briefed by each team on their project results.

Another NPS graduate, Lt. Gen. L. Neil Thurgood, director for hypersonics, directed energy, space and rapid acquisition and director of the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, visited NPS last June, and gave one of our six student teams its capstone thesis project: to find an affordable radar that can be mounted on a ground combat vehicle and track targets on the move. His message to our 62 assembled Army Acquisition Corps officers was that the new 522 program was going to be extremely advantageous for them, because of their resulting qualifications to serve in either 51A or 51C assignments. Another high-achieving alumnus, he advised them that diversity of knowledge is often more important in acquisition than depth in any single field.

The other five teams conducted their capstone projects studying:

• Multiple concepts of operations for swarms of unmanned aerial systems.
• An acquisition value model for Special Operations Forces materiel.
• An analysis of contracting transactions in deployed versus garrison environments.
• Prioritizing Army Community Services funds allocation.
• Field experimentation of the Soldier-Borne Sensor for optimal display size.

The last team just won the competition for Systems Engineering Management Outstanding Capstone Project.

CONCLUSION

The latest investment by the Army at NPS is the establishment of a new military position on the faculty, the Systems Engineering and Army Acquisition Chair, to help administer the Army’s programs and oversee them for the military deputy and DACM. Col. Joyce B. Stewart will be the first in the position, arriving in April 2020, coming from the Army’s Office of the Chief Systems Engineer and a seasoned program manager. Col. Stewart will bring Army relevance and current perspectives from her recent experience. She is welcomed by President Rondeau as an NPS asset and will help us move into the next decade, in support of all Army acquisition students at the school.

Overall, the new 522 and 722 degree programs deliver what Army leadership asked for: more technological relevance in an era of increasing threats, with students actually using the tools they’ve acquired before they leave for their follow-on acquisition assignments. Qualified to serve in a larger variety of assignments than ever before, our graduates are going to be able to contribute to warfighting readiness in the newest technological fields. They’ll be well-equipped to equip the warfighters.

For more information on either the military or civilian program go to https://asc.army.mil/web/career-development/programs/ andhttps://asc.army.mil/web/news-alt-jas18-mastering-acquisition/

JOHN T. DILLARD, COL., USA (RET.), managed major weapons development efforts for most of his 26-year career in the U.S. Army. He is now a senior lecturer in the Systems Engineering Department of the Graduate School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, where he also serves as the technical representative for the Army’s new Master of Science programs in Systems Engineering Management. He holds an M.S. in systems management from the University of Southern California and is a distinguished military graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga with a B.A. in biological sciences.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

The contracting pendulum has swung from complex to streamlined contracts to provide efficient and rapid acquisition in support of the Soldier.

by Veronica Alexander and Dr. Linda R. Herbert

Contracting methods have evolved over time, from three-page, performance-based contracts to specification-based contracts hundreds of pages in length, and now appear set to shift back to shorter contracts. The implementation of statutes, regulations and policies designed to ensure fair and equitable treatment for industry became burdensome and increased the time and complexity of the acquisition process. This resulted in an ineffective procurement process that influenced mission readiness. Since that time, the contracting pendulum has swung to agile, streamlined initiatives.

These initiatives have been spearheaded by several important regulations, including the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016, which was implemented by the Section 809 Panel, secretary of the Army initiatives and strategic reforms from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Procurement. One streamlining initiative embraced by Stuart Hazlett, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for procurement, is “data-driven contracting.” Data-driven contracting will facilitate analytics on raw data that can influence factors such as requirements, money spent, talent management, and procurement acquisition lead time.

SIGNIFICANT CONTRACTING CHANGES

Historically, there have been significant regulatory changes that have influenced DOD contracting processes. These regulatory changes are the springboard to many contracting initiatives used today. In 1962, Congress passed Public Law 87-653, the Truth in Negotiations Act. That law specifies that when dealing in a sole-source environment, each procurement-contracting officer must certify cost as accurate, completed and current for all cost and pricing data. The Truth in Negotiations Act has been a cornerstone for ensuring that prices paid by the government are considered “fair and reasonable.”

In 1974, Congress passed legislation to establish the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) within the Office of Management and Budget. OFPP provides direction for government-wide procurement policies, regulations and procedures; it also promotes economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the acquisition process. One way in which OFPP provides this direction is through the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

The FAR, implemented in 1984, provides uniform policies and procedures for governing federal government contracts. Accompanied by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), these regulatory policies inundate contracting professionals and industry partners. In 1984, Congress also passed the Competition in Contracting Act. That act requires competition for award of all government contracts. The theory is that more competition for procurements would reduce costs and allow more small businesses to win federal government contracts. It also established that if there is a protest submitted to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before contract award, the awarding of the contract will be suspended until GAO rules on the protest.

In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. That legislation established a preference for the use of commercial products and exempted commercial products from various statutory and regulatory requirements. It raised the ceiling for the use of “simplified purchase procedures” and raised the threshold for issuance synopsis. It exempted the micro-purchase from virtually all statutory requirements, and it required that paper-based contracting systems be replaced with an electronic contracting system within five years.

One of several efforts to make acquisition quicker and simpler, the Simplified Acquisition Threshold Supply Procurement Program was designed to require minimal training by customers to navigate the online marketplace. (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Kevin McClatchey)

CONTRACTING REFORM INITIATIVES

Acquisition reform is important and provides a check and a balance between regulatory accountability and agile acquisition. Because of recent reform initiatives, the contracting pendulum has swung from complex to streamlined contracting processes providing for efficient and rapid acquisition in support of the warfighter.

In 2005, OMB asked the OFPP to identify goods and services the government can purchase more effectively and efficiently through strategic sourcing. Strategic sourcing is an approach to supply chain management that formalizes the way information is gathered and used so that an organization can leverage its consolidated purchasing power to find the best possible values in the marketplace. As a result, the General Services Administration and the U.S. Department of the Treasury established the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative to address government-wide opportunities to strategically source commonly purchased goods and services and eliminate duplication of efforts across agencies. An example of strategic sourcing for the Army is in the procurement of commercial hardware and software purchases under the CHESS (Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software and Solutions) program.

Then, in December 2014, OFPP issued a memorandum that directed agencies to take specific actions to implement category management, an approach based on industry leading practices, to further streamline and manage entire categories of spending across government more like a single enterprise. (See “The Power of the Purchase,” Page XX.) This approach includes strategic sourcing along with a broader set of strategies, such as developing common standards in practices and contracts, and improving data analysis and information sharing to better leverage the government’s buying power and reduce unnecessary contract duplication.

The NDAA passed in 2016 streamlined the acquisition process and eliminated redundant and duplicative requirements. Section 809 of the NDAA required that the secretary of defense establish a nine-member advisory panel consisting of experts in acquisition and procurement policy. The objective of the panel is to review DOD’s acquisition regulations and provide recommendations for streamlining procurement.

Some of the significant recommendations made by the panel include expanding and clarifying the use of other-transaction authority for production. Other-transaction authority is the term commonly used to refer to DOD’s authority to carry out “certain prototype, research and production projects” other than contracts. Such authority gives DOD the flexibility necessary to adopt and incorporate business practices that reflect commercial industry standards into its award instruments. DOD currently has permanent authority to award other-transaction agreements for research, prototype and production purposes. This kind of agreement allows nontraditional vendors a pathway for doing business with the government and introducing new and innovative ideas. In fiscal year 2019, the Army awarded 854 other-transaction agreements valued at roughly $4.9 billion.

FAR and DFARS contract clauses that are required to “flow down” from prime contractors to subcontractors, especially commercial subcontractors, are excessive and create additional burdens on DOD’s supply chain. In response, the Section 809 panel updated the FAR and DFARS to reduce burdens on DOD’s commercial supply chain, to decrease cost, prevent delays, remove barriers and encourage innovation in the military services.

The panel recommended minimizing the number of government-unique terms in commercial buying. The panel noted that when the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act was established in 1994, there were only 57 FAR and DFARS clauses applicable to commercial buying. Today there are 165, according to the panel. The proliferation of clauses applicable to commercial buying at the prime contract level directly affects the number of government-unique clauses to subcontractors offering commercial products and services.

The 2018 NDAA amended the Truth in Negotiations Act to increase the threshold for contractors submitting certified cost and pricing data from $750,000 to $2 million. Contracting officers may still require cost or pricing data without certification as they are tasked with ensuring the cost or pricing data is fair and reasonable. However, this change is widely embraced by contractors doing business with the government.

Finally, the 2018 NDAA made changes to the bid and protest procedures relative to the Competition in Contracting Act and allows for enhanced post-award debriefing rights for DOD. What that means for DOD acquisitions is that, when a protest is filed, the “five-day period” to file a bid protest to trigger an automatic stay of award does not start until after the government delivers a written response to the offeror. Per the NDAA, “within two business days after receiving a post-award debriefing, additional questions related to the debriefing … [t]he agency shall respond in writing to any additional question … within five business days” and “the agency shall not consider the debriefing is to be concluded until the agency delivers its written responses.”

ARMY CONTRACTING REFORM

The Army awards thousands of contracts yearly to support military forces worldwide. In FY19, the Army awarded 212,094 contract actions estimated at $94.59 billion. This does not include grants, government purchase-card buys, cooperative agreements or other authorized transactions that increased the estimate to $104.89 billion.

In 2017, the secretary of the Army directed initiatives to reform Army contracting, issuing Army Directive 2017-32 (Acquisition Reform Initiative #6) that mandated streamlining practices within Army contracting to reduce the time it takes to develop and award a contract.

In accordance with this reform initiative, the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Procurement (DASA(P)) embarked on extensive reformation initiatives. They include:

• Developed a centralized policy to standardize contracting policy across the Army.

• Created a range of policies and procedures that will facilitate the efficient implementation of category management. One policy, currently in coordination, aligns contracting activities to categories. This policy will promote habitual relationships between the contracting centers, category managers, and customers. The draft policy stipulates that customers shall only submit their requirement to the designated contracting office. Aligning contracting activities with categories will assist in enforcing standard levels of services (SLS), limit SLS end run actions, and limit contract action shopping between contracting centers.

• Of 312 authorities identified in the FAR and DFARS, the Army delegated 159 authorities to a level lower than the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)). This increased efficiency and eliminated the requirement to staff packages to ASA(ALT) for signature and approval, thereby saving time, money and resources.

• Established “reform managers” to lead changes to contracting process and develop new streamlined procedures, e.g., source selection, pricing cell, etc.

DASA(P) is also embracing “data-driven decision making in contracting.” This type of contracting involves making decisions based on actual raw data derived from the automated contract systems. Data-driven decision-making positivity affects how requirements are communicated between major stakeholders such as financial managers, program managers, requirements activities, and industry partners. The bottom line is everybody wins through increased productivity in procuring goods and services for the warfighter.

CONCLUSION

On Sept. 30, 2019, in a message to the Army force, Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy said, “We must maintain a sustainable level of readiness to meet current demands while executing an aggressive modernization strategy to ensure the total Army remains the most lethal ground combat force in the world.”

To achieve that end, the contracting pendulum must swing towards less restrictive acquisition policies and procedures.

For more information, go to https://spcs3.kc.army.mil/asaalt/procurement/SitePages/PAMHome.aspx#&panel1-3.

VERONICA ALEXANDER is the director of the Procurement Support Pillar in the office of the DASA(P). She holds a master’s degree from Clark Atlanta University and a B.A. from Southern University. She is Level III certified in contracting and manufacturing.

DR. LINDA R. HERBERT is a procurement analyst in the Procurement Support Pillar in the office of the DASA(P). She has a Ph.D. from Regent University and holds four master’s degrees, including in acquisition materiel management from the Naval Postgraduate School, and in strategic studies from the U.S. Army War College. She is Level III certified in contracting and in program management.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
 Subscribe

An interview with the Army acquisition executive.

More than two years ago, Dr. Bruce D. Jette was confirmed by the U.S. Senate and sworn into office as the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)). He brought with him extensive experience in the Army acquisition process and lessons learned from owning an entrepreneurial business, along with a clear perspective on leadership and the benefits of a streamlined and agile organization.

His leadership philosophy is focused on cultural change, accelerated fielding, accelerated technology and accountability. Army AL&T spoke recently with Jette to ask his thoughts on modernization of the acquisition process and other changes impacting the acquisition workforce.

Army AL&T: The theme of this issue of Army AL&T is “Understanding Acquisition.” Briefly, what are some key points about acquisition that you want people to know?

Jette: I think it’s useful for people to understand how the basic acquisition process works. The process starts with a requirement. Someone has to say, “I have a need,” and be able to describe that need. If a materiel solution is required, a program is generated to fulfill that need.

A review is required, however, to confirm that a materiel solution is actually required. The Army follows the procedures laid out in the DOTMLPF (doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel and facilities) system to determine whether the need can be fulfilled with an organizational change. For example, the DOTMLPF review may reveal that we don’t need a new rifle, we need to add another rifleman to the squad—that would be an organizational solution versus a materiel one.

If the analysis concludes the need for a materiel solution, the Army acquisition team works through integrating and developing new technologies, putting them together into a system, and trying to fulfill the requirement as it is written.

It’s important to note “the requirement as it is written,” because testing is at the far end of the acquisition process—and what the Army tests against is exactly what the requirement describes. (See related article, “Enemies List”). For example, if we’re asked to build a vehicle with square wheels, we test against vehicles with square wheels, not vehicles with round wheels. While the requirements as written may seem questionable at times, it is our job as acquisition professionals to meet those requirements, not second-guess them.

Once the item is produced by the acquisition community, the Army fields it in accordance with what Army G-3/5/7 (operations, plans and training) has determined the fielding sequence will be, and what Army senior leaders have determined the fielding strategy will be.

When the item is fielded, the Army has to sustain it. Sustainment covers the parts, spares and stockages—as determined by the logistics side of the house, which is the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) in most cases, but might also be the Defense Logistics Agency.

At the end of the life cycle, when the product is being replaced, the Army has to divest it, and that may require demilitarization. As an example, the Army doesn’t just put gun tubes out onto the open market; we have to make sure they are not capable of ever being used again.

INTERLACED FINGERS
The radome being built at Tobyhanna Army Depot will be used to test AN/TSC-167 Satellite Transportable Terminals, replacing temporary structures in use now. Tobyhanna personnel have joined forces with the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical’s Project Manager for Tactical Network and U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command’s Integrated Logistics Support Center to deliver critical communications systems to the warfighter, in the “interlaced fingers” approach Jette describes. (U.S. Army photo by Thomas Robbins, Tobyhanna Army Depot)

Army AL&T: It sounds like a complex process that involves a lot of different people.

Jette: It’s a lot more complex than people think, especially that front-end piece, the operational requirement. The requirement is what we want to accomplish; it is what drives the acquisition system to give the Army the materiel it needs.

Prior to the establishment of the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC), under the old system, there was a point-to-point interface. Someone from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the various Army capability development integration directorates wrote the requirement. The acquisition community would then go about acquiring the technology or equipment. These were two independent activities.

I use what I call the “interlaced fingers” analogy to illustrate how we work together now. We have fingers from both hands that are interlaced; the left hand—AFC—has responsibility for the requirements, and the right hand—ASA(ALT)—has responsibility for producing the product. With both hands interlocked, the teams can interact more effectively. This interlocking of requirements and production allows Soldiers to provide critical feedback early into the development of the materiel.

Army AL&T: That leads me to the next question, and that is, how has the acquisition process changed since the creation of Army Futures Command?

Jette: Well, the technical acquisition process is unchanged by the existence of AFC. Deeply buried in law, we’re required in certain cases to do certain things. The laws surrounding the acquisition process, DOD 5000 and the DOD 5000 rewrite, and some of the policies that govern it, all of those things remain unchanged.

The creation of AFC, fundamentally though, has changed the front end of the process, which is the requirements—describing the need. The secretary of the Army issued guidance to senior leaders to find a more effective way to connect the requirements to the development of the acquisition strategy. Before, requirements were done by an austere group. Now, we’ve got a general officer, Gen. John M. Murray, leading the effort. That’s a pretty big difference in commitment to requirements on the part of the Army.

OPERATIONAL NEED
Loads are dropped from a U.S. Air Force C-17 aircraft using the G-16 cargo parachute, which will allow units to drop at a lower altitude and reduce the number of parachutes required. “Someone has to say, ‘I have a need,’ and be able to describe that need,” says Jette. (Photo by Jim Finney, Airborne and Special Operations Test Directorate, U.S. Army Operational Test Command)

Army AL&T: So are we getting better products for the Soldiers now?

Jette: There are products that we’re working on that clearly benefit from this new approach. Since AFC was established more than a year ago, we can see a much more capable performance on our part. We’ve got a much more intimate relationship between the requirements and acquisition communities—the interlocked hands I referred to earlier.

Army AL&T: So does this give Soldiers a better opportunity to have input into the development of equipment that they’ll eventually get?

Jette: It depends on the program. Some programs are well-suited to having a lot more Soldier touch points. The Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) is a great example. Soldiers are involved with IVAS on a weekly basis. While the acquisition program manager is working on development of the materiel solution, the AFC cross-functional team lead is working on providing Soldiers who can answer the next set of questions. So the two organizations work tremendously well toward generating a much better product much faster, because of that close, cooperative and intimate relationship.

Army AL&T: Are there any other examples, besides IVAS, of how that’s coming?

Jette: Having Soldiers involved in systems early has been easiest with those systems that are very familiar to the Soldier. The next-generation squad weapon rifle and automatic rifle are two examples.

The development of those weapons involved a lot of Soldier touch points at the front end, when we looked at the prototypes. That brought us to a contract that gives us four systems to test. Those systems were based on requirements that came from a very mature assessment of some of the previous prototypes, which then led to the new prototypes, all with a cleaner set of requirements. So we expect that the Soldiers, once we “down-select” to the weapon desired, will be very happy with that weapon produced.

Army AL&T: Shifting gears just a bit, what role does talent management have in the acquisition process?

Jette: Talent management is one of the most critical things we need to do for our military and civilian workforce, including our noncommissioned officers. Certainly, there’s training. We have to make sure everyone is properly trained. There are legal requirements with respect to acquisition workforce training before they’re allowed to expend government funds. In the area of our government contracting personnel, for example, they must be trained and certified to receive a warrant allowing them to spend government money. There is a similar requirement for program managers.

The acquisition workforce brings a very interesting set of capabilities to the table, one being that all uniformed acquisition personnel must be proven company commanders. This doesn’t mean they have the extensive experiences of an S-3 (operations officer) or as a battalion commander in their particular branch, but they walk out of their branch and their previous duty assignments with some relationship to, and understanding of, field operations. And in most cases, they have a combat badge.

Then the question becomes, “How do I develop the individuals who are within the acquisition community?” We have cyber, quantum computing, hypersonics, artificial intelligence and other highly technical areas. We have complex sensor systems and complex communication systems. If you’re going to truly lead in that area, then it can’t be perceived purely as a process. There is no difference between someone who knows how to do an operations order but no idea how to fight, and someone who knows how to design an acquisition strategy but no idea how to make it work.

In some cases, experience is all you need; in other cases, education is also required. If I’m going to have someone lead our effort in hypersonics, an advanced degree in an appropriate science or engineering field will provide insights into how to lead that program forward.

INTERLACED FINGERS
The radome being built at Tobyhanna Army Depot will be used to test AN/TSC-167 Satellite Transportable Terminals, replacing temporary structures in use now. Tobyhanna personnel have joined forces with the Program Executive Office for Command, Control and Communications – Tactical’s Project Manager for Tactical Network and U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command’s Integrated Logistics Support Center to deliver critical communications systems to the warfighter, in the “interlaced fingers” approach Jette describes. (U.S. Army photo by Thomas Robbins, Tobyhanna Army Depot)

Army AL&T: When you began your leadership at ASA(ALT), you talked about focusing on product more than process. Congress has enacted new authorities directed at acquisition improvement. How have you been implementing this transition?

Jette: All of the flexibilities that Congress has given us—middle-tier acquisition, other-transaction authority and others—are great tools in our kit, but we must approach reform in a process-based way. Acquisition personnel need to understand all the pieces that go into the toolkit, so that they can pull out the right tool to solve the right problem. Then, they must think through the difficulties and opportunities within any given program and put together a package that generates a successful outcome.

I have seen in the past where process was more important, and zero defects was the most important thing in that process. The problem with that is, the process does not guarantee an outcome or product. You can dot every “i”, cross every “t”, complete every form, submit every document, and have nothing that works to show for it. That’s not the outcome. Getting something out because you’ve done it and it works is the outcome.

Army AL&T: As the Army’s acquisition executive, how would you describe the acquisition community in contrast with military commands with which it works to provide materiel to Soldiers?

Jette: The acquisition community has a large commonality with the military commands with which we work—AFC, AMC, TRADOC and others. We all want to ensure the greatest defense for this country. We are all willing to serve and to do whatever it takes to get the job done, which for us is fielding needed capabilities to Soldiers as expeditiously as possible.

CRITICAL FEEDBACK
Soldiers work with emerging and maturing technologies in cyber, electronic warfare and intelligence at Cyber Blitz 19 in September at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey. Interlocking requirements and production “allows Soldiers to provide critical feedback early into the development of the materiel,” says Jette. (Photo by Edric Thompson, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command)

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

From prize money to mentorship and collaboration, the xTechSearch competition is growing into something of an incubator for promising new defense and dual-use technologies.

by Jess Stillman

It began as a challenge to accelerate acquisition and attract nontraditional small businesses to work with the Army. But the Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch) competition has succeeded in bringing into the acquisition pipeline remarkable technologies—one a solid propellant that’s 40 percent more efficient than existing rocket fuel; another, a way to see through walls. And those are just the first two winners of the competition.

Determined to tackle the current modernization challenges, the Army is seeking out new and innovative technology concepts through the xTechSearch competition. Small businesses nationwide have leveraged this opportunity to discuss how their technology concept can improve, enhance and further support the Army’s top priorities.

XTechSearch launched its fourth iteration in October 2019 at the Association of the United States Army’s (AUSA) Annual Meeting and Exposition, and is expanding to add program elements to increase education and engagement with the Army. Not only is xTechSearch a competition that provides small businesses with a platform to showcase their technologies to Army experts through various stages of development, it also now offers an accelerator program, increased collaboration opportunities, education sessions and opportunities for small businesses to engage with the program on social media. The continuous efforts are geared toward assisting small businesses and providing them with insights on how to do business with the Army.

Representatives from AKHAN Semiconductor, xTechSearch 2.0 finalists, speak with judges during their proof-of-concept demonstration during the AUSA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., in October. Small businesses across the U.S. have used xTechSearch to explore ways in which their capabilities can support the Army’s top priorities.

TACKLING MODERNIZATION, ONE GAP AT A TIME

During each of the four phases of the competition, small businesses show how their technology concept can help the Army tackle its modernization challenges. The small businesses receive feedback and guidance from panels of expert Army judges on how to further develop their technologies so that they can meet the needs of the warfighter. Judging panels include representatives from across the Army enterprise, including laboratory scientists and engineers, program managers, acquisition portfolio managers and the users of the technology themselves—Soldiers. The constant feedback helps small businesses “discover how they can fit in and help the military. We’re trying to give an opportunity to dialogue with people in the Army to help understand what their needs are and what opportunities there are and the applications that we are rewarding and the Army will be able to fund,” explained Dr. Bruce D. Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)), speaking at the AUSA Annual Meeting in October.

To date, the competitions have awarded more than $6 million in cash prizes to more than 235 small businesses, 36 of which have received more than $125,000 each to further advance their concepts. Two grand prize winners have received more than $325,000 each. (The monetary structure of the prizes has changed since the first iteration.) These cash prizes are non-dilutive capital—funding that doesn’t require giving up any equity in the company—transferred directly to the company’s bank account with no contracts or intellectual property concessions. The money is intended to help the businesses bring their technologies to fruition and open opportunities for the Army and other DOD organizations to invest in their products.

XTechSearch is working to break down the real and perceived barriers for small businesses to work with the Army and is enticing nontraditional innovators to come forward and communicate directly with Army stakeholders.

STRONGER CONNECTIONS, MORE OPPORTUNITIES

The technology search has become more than just a competition; the program aims to uncover novel science and technology concepts while providing ongoing support and mentorships to gain insight and an understanding of how to do business with the Army while navigating its complexity—something that many small businesses need to successfully transition technologies into the Army. The program has sought out various initiatives to support the participating small businesses and connect them with Army leaders, DOD, other government agencies, industry and academia partners.

In October 2019, during AUSA, xTechSearch launched the xTech Accelerator. “The goal of the accelerator program is to integrate small businesses into the science and technology community in a more formal way and provide another set of tools to accomplish their task,” Jette said during the event. XTechSearch is partnering with FedTech and the Virginia Tech Applied Research Corporation to run the program, which provides all competitors with various levels of support, including education, community building, goal-setting, connections to future opportunities and mentorships.

One of the top initiatives of the accelerator program is to provide mentorship to small businesses. “Small businesses will be able to get a bit of mentoring, networking and make connections to turn your idea into a fielded product,” Jette said. The mentorship program provides access to the FedTech mentor network, which consists of Army leaders, industry executives, veteran business builders, experts and defense innovators across the nation.

The accelerator also provides a Slack channel (Slack is an online collaboration tool that includes messaging) to enable small businesses to collaborate with one another during and after each competition, and share opportunities within the cohort. Small businesses can also learn about product development, business development, customer discovery, interviewing and more through access to online learning platforms.

The xTechSearch competition partners with the National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) to develop a platform that allows small business participants to create a profile that shows an overview of their business and their technology concepts through the Defense Innovation Network. NSIN’s Defense Innovation Network provides an opportunity for the small businesses to connect with one another, see problems and solve problems, showcase their current technologies and receive additional resources that can be helpful in growing their business.

This centralized repository, accessible to anyone, allows the xTechSearch program to share information about the small businesses with other interested stakeholders from industry, DOD and other government agencies. NSIN and its programs serve to develop a new alliance of defense, academia and venture communities. These NSIN initiatives and the xTechSearch program attack future defense problems by getting students interested at an early age in defense problems and careers, providing education and resources to foster startup businesses in the defense sector, and helping network and mentor businesses seeking to solve the current and future needs of DOD.

INCREASING THE ODDS

XTechSearch continues to seek out additional resources and partnerships to bring the highest value to small businesses across the nation. The competition is designed to be more than just winning a prize during each phase: It’s about making the right connections, growing small businesses and providing warfighters with the next-generation technology they need.

The xTechSearch-sponsored Army Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) topic, “Expeditionary Technology Search (xTechSearch) Dual-Use Technologies to Solve Challenging Army Problems,” is an additional opportunity for small businesses to receive funding and formal contracts to further develop their technologies. Agencies within the federal government can advertise their needs with “topics,” or see a possibility to fill their needs with innovative technology. SBIR provides small businesses with an opportunity to understand their technologies’ potential impact on the Army by publishing topics of interest that they can respond to. Responding to the 19.2 SBIR topic, 10 small businesses were selected by a panel of judges and awarded a contract of up to $120,000 over a period of six months to continue the federal research and development efforts that were initiated in Phase I, showing the technical merit, feasibility and commercial potential for their technology. Eight of the 10 awardees were companies that had previously participated in the xTechSearch competition.

The SBIR program gives small businesses the opportunity to deliver innovative research and development (R&D) solutions to key Army requirements. But xTechSearch has taken a new approach to the program and expanded the horizons to allow for ground-breaking technologies through the SBIR topics. The xTechSearch SBIR topic consists of three phases, which are roughly similar to the xTechSearch competition. The SBIR program benefits the Army and small businesses by:

• Providing the Army and DOD with an understanding of how the technologies’ advantage compares with similar commercial products, along with how the technology can be applied to Army modernization priority areas.
• Showcasing the prototype solutions and providing a technology transition and commercialization plan.
• Maturing technology to Technology Readiness Level 6-7 (where it is working in an operationally relevant environment), and producing prototypes for further development and commercialization in both the Army and the commercial realm.
• Opening the topic to multiple domains and areas of interest and enabling the Army to see additional technologies and capabilities that may be available to assist in solving some of the most critical challenges it faces.

The xTechSearch SBIR topic is providing a pipeline for small businesses discovered through the xTechSearch program to enter into a contractual agreement with the Army to further develop and transition their technologies, the ultimate goal for many of the small businesses entering the xTechSearch competition. The xTechSearch SBIR application is shorter than typical Army SBIR topics, streamlining the process for small businesses and reducing the barrier to conduct business with the Army.

Employees of Great Lakes Sound and Vibration Inc. demonstrate their technology concept to service members at AUSA in October. The company was a finalist in xTechSearch 2.0, which provides small businesses with a platform to showcase their technologies to Army experts and now offers an accelerator program, increased collaboration opportunities and opportunities for small businesses to engage on social media.

INTEGRATING INTO THE ARMY’S ECOSYSTEM

The xTechSearch program works to provide small businesses with the opportunity to become integrated into the Army’s ecosystem. As the Army continues to promote long-lasting engagement with traditional and nontraditional defense partners through xTechSearch, the Army is recognizing similar programs and outlets that allow new and innovative technology solutions to be seen and heard.

Since the beginning of xTechSearch 2.0, competitions have overlapped. The Army announced the winner of xTechSearch 1.0 in March 2019, and 2.0 during AUSA in October 2019. It also announced the Phase IV proof-of-concept demonstration competitors at that event. In March, during the AUSA Global Force Symposium and Exposition in Huntsville, Alabama, those Phase IV companies will demonstrate their proofs of concept at the event’s Innovator’s Corner. Additionally, xTechSearch 5.0 will be launched.

Meanwhile, xTechSearch 4.0 is ongoing. The 12 small businesses selected to move on to Phase IV of xTechSearch 3.0 are:

• Anti-Rotational Technologies Inc.
• Cayuga Biotech Inc.
• ElectroNucleics Inc.
• GhostWave Inc.
• Knight Technical Solutions LLC
• LiquidPiston
• Merciless Motors
• SIGINT Systems LLC
• Syncopated Engineering
• TexPower Inc.
• TRX Systems
• XO-NANO Smartfoam

These small businesses are preparing for the final phase of xTechSearch 3.0 and will present their proofs of concept during the AUSA Global Force event.

The grand prize winner of xTechSearch 2.0 was Lumineye Inc., which demonstrated its man-portable wall penetrating radar. After participating in xTechSearch 1.0 but only progressing to the second phase of the competition, Lumineye came back to compete again, having made improvements to its technology using the feedback it had received from xTechSearch 1.0.

For more information about xTechSearch and to see the various opportunities available, go to www.xTechSearch.army.mil or follow them on Facebook and Twitter @xTechSearch.

Jess Stillman is a senior consultant with Booz Allen Hamilton providing contract support to xTechSearch at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command’s Army Research Laboratory. She has a B.S. in health science from South University.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

By Michael Bold

FORT BELVOIR, Va. (Jan. 13, 2020) — Do you understand Army acquisition? It’s not an easy subject to master. But at its essence, it’s all about requirements. “The requirement is what we want to accomplish,” says Dr. Bruce D. Jette, the Army acquisition executive. “It is what drives the acquisition system to give the Army the materiel it needs.” The Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine attempts to tackle all aspects of Army acquisition, as well as myriad other topics. In this issue:

• The Army has turned to other-transaction agreements to power its modernization efforts and to focus on products over process, and defense acquisition experts say the plan is working. See “A NEW ERA OF ACQUISITION.”
• Army contracting has swung from complex to streamlined to provide efficient and rapid acquisition in support of the Soldier. Read about how in “THE CONTRACTING PENDULUM.”
• In the first of a new series, “ON CONTRACTING,” a look at how market research can be the basis for vigorous competition in Army acquisition, in “HOW TO CONVINCE THE ARMY TO GET WHAT YOU NEED.”
• The first in another new series examines how the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Command works in water and on land to lay the groundwork for multidomain operations in 2028. See “ENGINEERING THE THEATER.”
• From prize money to mentorship and collaboration, the xTechSearch competition is growing into something of an incubator for promising new defense and dual-use technologies. Read how in “MORE THAN A COMPETITION.”
• Software-defined networking could get Army’s data moving faster. Learn how in “REDEFINING THE NETWORK.”

Also, remember that Army AL&T is built on contributions from you, the Army Acquisition Workforce. For more information on how to publish an article in Army AL&T magazine or how to submit a Faces of the Force nomination, go to https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-submissions/ to see our writers guidelines, upcoming deadlines and themes.

Winter 2020 Army AL&T

FROM THE AAE
Empowering acquisition
With appropriate authority and the right training, the Army acquisition team can better deliver overmatch capabilities to Soldiers

UNDERSTANDING ARMY ACQUISITION
A new era of acquisition
Experts cautiously optimistic that Army acquisition has a bright future

The acquisition toolkit
An interview with Dr. Bruce D. Jette, the Army acquisition executive

What understanding looks like
Understanding acquisition is hard, depicting how it works is next to impossible

The need for interoperability standards
Aligning IT standards enables seamless command and control across echelons

The contracting pendulum
From short to long and back to short

On contracting: How to convince the Army to get what you need
Market research is the foundation of competition in Army acquisition

Engineering the theater
Army engineers map, model and forecast for the next conflict

International innovation
International technology centers get innovative solutions through foreign partnerships

Faces of the Force: Dr. Genevieve Flock
Working globally, thinking locally

High-performance advantage
Supercomputing for savings and tougher systems

Seamless waveforms
Rapid Innovation Fund enables the military, nontraditional contractors to work together

Rapid networking
PEO C3T’s rapid radio readiness

Sustaining FMS acquisitions
More than equipment is bought in foreign military sales

Faces of the Force: Staff Sgt. Dawit Gebreyesus
Education never depreciates

Solid cornerstone
Cornerstone OTA benefits Soldiers and industry

FEATURE ARTICLES
More than a competition
XTechSearch is growing into a tech incubator

CCDC’s road map to modernizing the Army: Soldier lethality
CCDC Soldier Center sets out to decrease the Soldier’s burden

Innovation through technology
DASA(P), GSA get federal agencies to share solutions to similar acquisition challenges

Redefining the network
Software-defined networking could get Army’s data moving faster

Solution evolution
USAMRDC workshops map technology landscape

Moving acquisition
Transportability engineering gets acquisition underway

The long poles in the acquisition tent
An innovative acquisition approach rapidly delivered encryption devices to the U.S. Army Special Operations Command

The power of the purchase
Category management creates a better buying approach

Investing in the future
New system strengthens Army GPS capabilities

Faces of the Force: Sean Brandt
Taking charge of the narrative

COMMENTARY
Enemies list
Experts say there are five missteps in requirements that trip up program testing

WORKFORCE
From the DACM: Speeding up hiring
AAW Recruitment and Sustainment Center of Excellence takes shape

Worth it
Training With Industry expands officers’ knowledge of industry practices

Career Navigator: Apply, learn and conquer
Spend a year working at Ford, Amazon, Intel or other industry leaders

The big ask
Naval Postgraduate School upgrades graduate education for Army acquisition professionals

Faces of the Force: Amy K. Larson
Lead where you land

On the Move

For more ways to read Army AL&T go to https://asc.army.mil/web/army-alt/.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

Col. David Warnick

TITLE: Project manager
COMMAND/ORGANIZATION: Joint Attack Munition Systems Project Office, Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space
YEARS OF SERVICE IN WORKFORCE: 17
YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE: 27
DAWIA CERTIFICATIONS: Level III in program management
EDUCATION: MBA, Naval Postgraduate School; Master of Strategic Studies, Air War College; B.S. in management and systems engineering, United States Military Academy at West Point
AWARDS: Defense Acquisition Workforce Individual Achievement Award for Program Management; Meritorious Service Medal (four oak leaf clusters), Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Aviator Badge

By Susan L. Follett

Nearly 20 years ago, then-Capt. David Warnick was finishing his troop command as an aviation officer and a Kiowa Warrior pilot and was “not necessarily impressed with the direction of the platform.” Research into how modernization and improvements took place led him to the Acquisition Corps. “After talking with some mentors, I felt this would be a great way to apply my aviation background and ensure that future pilots had platforms that brought the greatest capability to the battlefield.”

Warnick—now a colonel—has had an active career since then, starting as assistant program manager in the Aviation Rockets and Missiles Product Office and the Close Combat Weapons Systems Project Office within the Program Executive Office (PEO) for Missiles and Space; then serving as a warranted contracting officer at Fort Drum, New York; a Department of the Army systems coordinator in Washington; as executive officer for the deputy for acquisition and systems management in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; and eventually returning to PEO Missiles and Space in July 2016 to serve in his current role: project manager for the Joint Attack Munition Systems Project Office.

“Our office is responsible for designing, developing and delivering air-to-ground munition systems that over time have been adapted to be fired from a variety of platforms for employment against a wide range of target sets,” Warnick said. The office’s HELLFIRE missiles and Hydra rockets, along with their associated launcher systems, have been used extensively in current overseas contingency operations, and the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) has recently been fielded for use in multidomain operations. “We are very proud of the long history of our programs and the efforts we have taken to extend that legacy, and we continue to provide safe, reliable and effective munitions,” he said.

“I am truly blessed to have the greatest job in the Army. It has given me the opportunity to work with some of the most dedicated and caring professionals you will ever find,” Warnick added. “They are an incredibly gifted and talented group, but what separates them from other organizations is their cohesiveness and genuine concern for the warfighters they support and for each other.”

Given the number and variety of platforms that Warnick’s office oversees, it’s not surprising that he considers stakeholder management to be the most challenging aspect of his job. “I have a portfolio of products with a variety of end users from all U.S. services, numerous foreign partners, multiple platforms with unique integration requirements, and our extensive supply chain of industry partners,” he said. He advocates and supports decision making at the appropriate levels for product managers and functional leadership as a way to address that challenge. “I am fortunate to work with great leadership in those positions and they make it possible to keep the organization and our product lines on track,” he added.

What would he look for if he were hiring someone for his position? “First and foremost, I would like to keep my job,” he said. “It is the most rewarding position imaginable, with a critical mission, and incredible people executing challenging tasks. Unfortunately, I know I can’t stay here forever. The skills most important for my successor to possess are the ability to empower subordinates, followed closely by patience. It is difficult but necessary to fully empower subordinates, but with clearly defined left and right limits to operate within,” he said. “Patience is also key while processes are being refined to optimize to the establishment of [the U.S.] Army Futures Command.”

“You should never do anything that compromises your own integrity, and you should demand the same from your peers and subordinates,” Warnick said. “I tell my team that if we provide good information to leaders and they make bad decisions, sleep well. The alternatives of providing misleading information to get what we believe is the right decision, or providing incomplete information, leads to an uninformed decision, and compromises our integrity, and that should never be done.”

Late in 2019, Warnick received the Defense Acquisition Workforce Individual Achievement Award for Project Management for his accomplishments on several fronts. He led efforts to ensure that the JAGM program earned a successful milestone C decision in June 2018 and achieved initial operational capability in March 2019. Joint testing for the missile was completed in May 2019. The JAGM will eventually replace the TOW and HELLFIRE missile families. Additionally, Warnick oversaw increases in production for the HELLFIRE missile in response to increased demand, and led efforts within the Aviation Rockets and Small Guided Munitions Product Office to cut costs and enhance the reliability and capability of the Hydra-70 Rocket System and Small Guided Munitions.

“I was very surprised when the [award] announcement was made,” Warnick said. “There are so many high-profile efforts going on across the DOD, and even though I’d put my team up against anyone, I know there were many excellent contenders for the award.

“I am honored to have been selected for this very prestigious award, and appreciative of the recognition it has brought to our office and the accomplishments of our amazing team,” he added. “The past few years have been extremely challenging, and for the most senior acquisition leaders to acknowledge the effort and sacrifices made by our office to support the warfighter is very humbling.”

“Faces of the Force” is an online series highlighting members of the Army Acquisition Workforce through the power of individual stories. Profiles are produced by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center Communication and Support Branch, working closely with public affairs officers to feature Soldiers and civilians serving in various AL&T disciplines. For more information, or to nominate someone, please go to https://asc.army.mil/web/publications/army-alt-submissions/.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.
 Subscribe

The SB>DEFIANT produced by Sikorsky-Boeing is one of two aircraft selected for further testing under the JMR-TD program. (Image courtesy of Boeing.)

Supercomputing allows acceleration of the acquisition timeline.

by Scott Sundt, Alexandra Landsberg, Megan Holland, and Owen Eslinger

The rollout of the National Defense Strategy in early 2018 had an immediate impact on the way DOD approaches its mandate for defending the United States. It has sent ripples throughout the services and caused much focused reflection on the strategic, operational and tactical priorities that must be addressed in a future world where potential near-peer adversaries may have reached parity with our own force structure. Within DOD research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) communities, the call has gone out to speed up innovation, reduce acquisition timelines, and produce game-changing weapon systems at reduced cost and risk. The directive from the National Defense Strategy is clear: “Deliver performance at the speed of relevance.” The American warfighter needs 21st-century weapons systems now, not 10 or 15 years from now.

Fortunately, DOD finds itself at a unique moment thanks to the steady progress of digital engineering and high-performance computing over the past 20 years. In response to increasing access to supercomputing, massive data collection, high-fidelity physics-based software development, and high-speed networks, DOD released its Digital Engineering Strategy in June 2018. This document has set a course for DOD and the services to take advantage of these enabling assets and apply them to the emerging technology challenges.

The combination of the National Defense Strategy and the Digital Engineering Strategy has provided the Army with the impetus for fundamentally restructuring the way it equips its forces for the future. The Army’s top six modernization technologies (long-range precision fires, Next Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, anti-missile defense and Soldier lethality), along with its eight cross-functional teams and a new four-star U.S. Army Futures Command, have provided a solid foundation and direction for the Army research, development, test and evaluation community and program executive offices.

A Bell V280 Valor, one of two aircraft selected for further testing under the JMR-TD program. (Image courtesy of Bell)

HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM

The DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Program provides high-performance computing capabilities and expertise, enabling National Defense Strategy priorities across DOD. It provides DOD with a comprehensive computational modeling and simulation ecosystem that integrates supercomputing capabilities, high-speed networks and computational science expertise that enable scientists and engineers to conduct a wide range of focused research, development and test activities. The program, with a $280 million annual budget, was chartered by Congress to revolutionize warfighter support through increased application of high-performance computing to critical RDT&E and acquisition engineering initiatives. This is a tri-service effort managed for the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)) by the deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology and executed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, Mississippi.

By amplifying the creativity, productivity and impact of the RDT&E and acquisition engineering communities, high-performance computing provides unprecedented insight into the physical world that would otherwise be too costly, dangerous or time-consuming to obtain through observation and experimentation alone. The program includes DOD Supercomputing Resource Centers; software applications; and secure networking. The High-Performance Computing Modernization Program also leverages specialized expertise from DOD, other federal departments and agencies, industry, and academia to mature leading-edge software application codes. This expertise complements that of DOD scientists and engineers, helping customers achieve critical mission objectives.

The ERDC Data Analysis and Assessment Center provides a visualization of Helios simulations of maneuvering rotorcraft. The Engineered Resilient Systems program, utilizing Helios high-fidelity simulations, enables better-informed decisions before major acquisition. (Image by Andrew Wissink, U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate, Army CCDC Aviation and Missile Center.)

As the demands and availability for computational resources have grown over the years, the user base and the size and complexity of jobs have grown to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by increased resources. In fiscal year 2019, the High-Performance Computing Modernization Program internal database indicated there were over 3,000 active users. Large-scale high-performance computing simulations have transformed from a niche activity to a mainstream activity.

The software applications of the High Performance Computing Modernization Program provide a suite of software development and support services aimed at optimizing software capabilities to design, develop, test and deploy superior DOD capabilities. These efforts and services include the Computational Research and Engineering Acquisition Tools and Environments (CREATE) software development activity, which furnishes critical modeling support in the world of digital engineering prototyping.

CREATE is the program’s premier vehicle for addressing DOD’s current and future design and analysis efforts for its major acquisition programs. CREATE provides innovative applications of its software tools for developing and optimizing aircraft, ship, ground vehicle and radar antenna designs, and allows the acceleration of the acquisition timeline. It has expanded the acceptance, use and adoption of its various physics-based software tools to over 160 defense organizations. Its products are now becoming an integral part of major defense acquisition programs for design space exploration, design analysis, and performance prediction and testing across the weapon system life cycle.

Present acquisition programs largely follow an empirical “design-build-test” iterative methodology. This results in late discovery of design flaws, issues of immature technology issues, and system integration problems. Rework and redesign efforts contribute substantially to cost overruns and schedule delays. By employing a “model-test-build” paradigm, optimized engineering designs can be developed early in the acquisition process using CREATE tools. Costs can be substantially reduced, schedules shortened, and design and program flexibility, and agility, increased. Above all, the reduction of design flaws, the quick and flexible development of sound engineering concepts and designs, and beginning the systems integration engineering process much earlier in the acquisition process, all improve the performance of acquisition programs.

IMPACT ON ARMY PROGRAMS

High performance computing supports the entire life cycle of a weapons system. Using the Army’s helicopters as an example, high-performance computing is critical to the updating of legacy platforms such as the CH-47 Chinook and the H-60 Black Hawk, as well as the Army’s Future Vertical Lift effort. CREATE-AV’s (Aviation Vehicles) Helios software is a high-fidelity, multi-physics analysis tool for rotary-wing aircraft. Helios can calculate the performance of a full-sized rotorcraft, including the fuselage and rotors. It can also handle arbitrary rotor configurations, and analyze and predict prescribed maneuvers with tight coupling of rotor aero-structural dynamics. A highly accurate treatment of the complex air flow generated from rotor blade tips—vortex shedding—gives Helios the unique capability to assess the interaction of these vortices with the fuselage and nearby rotor blades. The large-scale calculations with Helios are run on the program’s supercomputers. Helios offers the ability to predict phenomena that, a decade ago, could only be observed in flight test.

The ERDC Data Analysis and Assessment Center provides a visualization of a Helios UH-60 model showing rotor wake turbulence triggered by a pull-up maneuver. (Image by Andrew Wissink, U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate, Army CCDC Aviation and Missile Center)

CH-47 Block II Advanced Chinook Rotor Blade (ACRB) The CH-47 Block II Advanced Chinook Rotor Blade (ACRB) is designed for improved lifting capability in hover without compromising forward speed. Initial flight tests showed high-control system loads for the rear rotor in high-speed forward flight. Army engineers, Boeing Co. and the Project Manager for Cargo Helicopters under the Program Executive Office for Aviation formed an engineering team to address this problem. Helios was used to capture the complex, unsteady aerodynamics phenomena and explore design space to restore high-speed performance while retaining ACRB benefits for hover. Army engineers have been able to identify potential performance issues and evaluate mitigation designs. The modified rotor blade design was successfully tested in late 2018, resulting in a significant enhancement to the combat capability of the 400-plus Chinooks in the Army inventory. In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, Lt. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski, principal military deputy for ASA(ALT), highlighted the importance of the High-Performance Computing Modernization Program to Army acquisition programs.

“It is absolutely critical,” said Ostrowski. “With respect to the Block II Chinook (helicopter), we have avoided about $50 million of cost in terms of flight based on being able to supercompute the effects of the new rotor blades.”

The Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program is a precursor to the Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) effort, intended to demonstrate transformational vertical lift capabilities to enable programmatic decisions. Requirements for the JMR-TD aircraft were established in 2012. In 2013, technology investment agreements (TIAs) were awarded to four companies—AVX Aircraft Co., Bell, Karem Aircraft and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. teamed with Boeing. In an effort to better understand the aircraft and technologies being developed under JMR-TD, Helios was applied to all four of the configurations awarded under the technology investment agreements in 2013. This enabled Army aviation engineers to conduct an independent analysis of contractor proposals, resulting in more informed and timely acquisition decisions. Results from the analysis were used during the initial design and risk review to guide selection of the two demonstrator aircraft from Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team. Helios continues to be used to carry out further analysis on the two testbed aircraft selected for development. Because the actual vehicles have proprietary information, these results cannot be disseminated openly.

High-performance computing is critical to the updating legacy helicopters such as the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. (U.S. Army photo by Gertrud Zach, Training Support Activity Europe U.S. Army)

The High-Performance Computing Modernization Program also works closely with the Engineered Resilient Systems program, an effort initiated in 2012 to accelerate acquisition through the use of high-performance computing. The Engineered Resilient Systems approach combines high-fidelity, physics-based modeling, advanced data analytics, machine learning and process automation with high-performance computing to enable better-informed decisions before major acquisition milestones. The partnership with Engineered Resilient Systems allows Army high-performance computing to be used in new ways; the program recently developed an artificial intelligence and machine learning ecosystem for large-scale data management. As a result, the Army was able to consolidate terabytes of H60 helicopter data, giving analysts the ability to explore the full maintenance dataset and enabling true predictive maintenance for the first time. When fully implemented, 100 percent of the H60 fleet will be eligible for the oil-cooler life extension program versus the 20 percent previously eligible. This has the potential to double the maintenance interval for the oil cooler, a critical component that costs several hundred thousand dollars to replace. This practice is already being extended to fleets of ground vehicles and other Army platforms.

CONCLUSION

The High-Performance Computing Modernization Program is a national asset delivering high-performance computing capabilities and expertise to mission-critical challenges. Together with the Engineered Resilient Systems program, it is striving to improve acquisition efforts across all phases of the weapon system life cycle and to enable more informed and timely acquisition decisions. These programs have already demonstrated the ability to accelerate the acquisition timeline, while also reducing risk and cost to DOD, and will continue to engage in new partnerships to address the department’s highest priorities.

SCOTT SUNDT is a retired Navy captain with over 30 years of active-duty service including command at sea. He is the lead for High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP) Acquisition and Digital Engineering. He holds an M.S. in electrical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School, an M.S. national strategic studies from the National War College, and an M.S. in national resource studies from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces of National Defense University, and has a B.S. in physical science from the U.S. Naval Academy. 

ALEXANDRA LANDSBERG is the deputy director of the High Performance Computing Modernization Program. She holds an M.S. and a B.S. in aerospace engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She has over 25 years of experience with the federal government in high-performance computing.

MEGAN HOLLAND is a knowledge management specialist at the ERDC Information Technology Laboratory in Vicksburg, Mississippi. She has an MBA with an emphasis in marketing from Mississippi State University and a B.A. in English with an emphasis in writing from Mississippi College. 

OWEN ESLINGER is the Engineered Resilient Systems program manager and a computer scientist at the ERDC Information Technology Laboratory. He holds a Ph.D. and an M.S. in computational and applied mathematics from the University of Texas at Austin, and a B.S. in mathematics from North Carolina State University.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine. Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

OCSE aligns IT standards for Army and joint all-domain command-and-control, and mission partner environments to ensure seamless interoperability of command-and-control systems across all echelons.

by William G. Langston, Frederick J. Fable, Steven G. Drake

The Army is currently undergoing one of the largest technological upgrades in its 244-year history. Major modernization changes to the mission command network and networked systems are in the process of being developed and fielded to Soldiers. The major changes to the network and systems, when implemented, will result in better secure communications in all environments and provide an enhanced common operating picture from the Soldier at “the pointy edge of the spear” to the command posts at corps and above.

The modernization efforts will also provide commonality across applications, graphics and data sets, as well as interoperability within the Army and with our mission partner environments while enabling joint, all domain command-and-control.

Establishing a mission partner environment capability involves aspects of the human, procedural and technical domains that collectively enable the U.S. Army and coalition partners to achieve shared understanding, mutual trust and confidence, and unity of effort in order to seamlessly plan, prepare and conduct unified land and multidomain operations. 

Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) is command and control that connects distributed sensors and data to forces from and in each domain—land, sea, air, space and cyber—at the scale and tempo required to accomplish commander’s intent. JADC2 success is predicated upon ensuring common data standards are implemented to achieve interoperability across the joint partners.

This is a tall order to accomplish and, in the past, the Army has struggled with the complexity of achieving this level of interoperable, networked mission command because while functional requirements were well defined, the system-of-system interoperability requirements were difficult to define. The Army’s previous attempt at such change was Future Combat System (FCS), a program designed to replace all of our network, command-and-control and ground combat platforms. FCS was intended to be interoperable by design because it was developed as a system-of-systems as opposed to separate warfighting functional areas such as maneuver, intelligence, fires, etc., with interoperability often a second design consideration.

Implementing rigorous system-of-systems lessons learned from FCS will be key for the Army to succeed in achieving interoperability. Most important is that networks and systems require the use of an agreed-upon set of information technology data standards. Implementing common data standards allow networks and systems to achieve seamless communication and transfer of information across systems, commands and national boundaries in a timely manner. Secondly, information technology standards must be identified during system development and coordinated among all systems implementing these standards prior to implementation. Based on government and industry best practices, waiting to address data standards until developmental or operational test events is too late. It’s costly and timing consuming to rework the underlying data structures to achieve interoperability once a system has been built.

LINES OF EFFORT
Integrated operational requirements are defined along four standards-based lines of effort (LOE), ending in the delivery of a robust, cloud-enabled common operating environment at all levels that is prepared to support transition to joint all-domain operations. (All images courtesy of the authors and the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center)

LEGACY VS. FUTURE

Even though interoperability and the use of data standards are mandated by government statutes, policy, regulations, and system key performance parameters, most often these are not the focus of a system development effort. A program manager’s development efforts are driven by Army-approved requirements documents and capability delivery priorities set by the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) capability managers. Therefore, in a fiscally constrained environment, the program manager is often forced to choose between the requirement for system interoperability and the higher-priority requirement for warfighting functionality.

Until last year, legacy systems were developed against specific warfighting function (maneuver, intelligence and fires) requirements documents which rarely contained details on specific information exchanges with other warfighting function systems. There was no overarching system-of-systems view for interoperability or data exchange requirements. Requirements for networks and networked systems were scattered in multiple documents, and written by multiple communities without an overarching view of how all the systems exchange data and interoperate to create a common operational picture. While TRADOC recognized that standards are important to achieve interoperability, they considered the determination of which standards were needed to achieve interoperability to be a decision for the materiel development community and not found in the requirements documents. Instead, the requirements priorities of TRADOC capability managers were focused on capabilities that enhanced the specific warfighting functions that they represented. At times interoperability was addressed but seen as a secondary priority especially when funding cuts were taken by the program during budget cycles.

DATA EXCHANGE
Six computing environments contain 118 systems with 775 unique data exchange interfaces. The goal of OCSE and the common operating environment is to reduce data exchanges among legacy systems.

PATH FORWARD

Recognizing the importance of data standards in achieving interoperability, the chief required that the Army network be based on open-source standards that are inherently interoperable. He required that TRADOC coordinate with the assistant secretary of the Army, acquisition logistics and technology (ASA(ALT)) and the Army’s chief information officer to “refine an integrated set of common operating environment standards requirements based on designated open-source standards methodologies.” The execution order went on to require implementation of policies and standards that would make the Army’s primary tactical operations network one that allows our coalition mission partners to operate on the same network.

In support of the execution order, leadership stakeholders from across the Army signed the Army Mission Command Network Implementation Plan, Volumes 1 and 2. Together, they describe how the Army will modernize the mission command network, including all the warfighting functions, from now and into the future. The intent of these plans is to pivot the Army to a faster modernization path. Foundational to achieving this pivot are integrated operational requirements, and integrated, standards-based architectures that allow “plug and play” of new capabilities.

These integrated operational (warfighting) requirements are defined along four lines of effort. All four efforts are standards-based, culminating in the delivery of a robust, cloud-enabled common operating environment at all echelons prepared to support transition to joint all-domain operations.

Also, based on the chief’s execution order and to accomplish the second line of effort, TRADOC received approval in 2018 for the common operating environment information systems initial capabilities document and subsequent requirements definition packages. These requirements documents, for the first time, were designed to provide an overarching system-of-systems view of the mission command network and systems. They provide a holistic set of requirements for the common operating environment and break down those requirements into the subordinate definition packages that give each computing environment of the common operating environment its portion of Army’s warfighting capability. Currently, TRADOC is writing capability drop documents—documents that prioritize incremental delivery of capabilities within 18 to 24 months—the first of which has been approved.

To support the chief’s modernization vision for mission command network and systems, ASA(ALT) established the Office of the Chief Systems Engineer (OCSE) in March 2019. OCSE’s responsibilities include performing Army-level system-of-systems engineering by maintaining a standards-based Army integrated modernization architecture and communicating the Army data standards to subordinate program managers.

OCSE is also the ASA(ALT) staff lead for overarching governance and management of IT data standards for the common operating environment, including configuration management and promulgating the interoperability standards baseline across the six computing environments, and in coordination with Army, joint and coalition stakeholders.

The six computing environments contain approximately 118 legacy systems, with 775 unique point-to-point data exchange interfaces. The goal of OCSE and the common operating environment is to reduce the number of legacy system data exchanges using message formats by relying on common infrastructures developed by the computing environments. This will allow systems to become applications and services that efficiently leverage the standardized data provided by the infrastructure to achieve warfighter capabilities.

To ensure program managers know which common operating environment data standards to implement, OCSE is working with TRADOC to include a tailored set of key standards within each of the capability drop requirements documents to drive uniform implementation across ASA(ALT) systems and infrastructures. Making standards an inherent part of the program’s approved requirements also greatly benefits program managers by giving them a basis to program for the necessary funding needed for implementation.

For the first time, OCSE and TRADOC are collaborating during development of requirements documents by leveraging a common tool—the Army Capability-Based Architecture Development and Integration Environment (ARCADIE) Magic Draw Teamwork Server—to ensure standards remain consistent across all requirements documents. OCSE is also using the ARCADIE tool to model the interfaces between computing environments that allow efficient integration and facilitates interoperability. The individual system interfaces between two computing environments are consolidated into a single control point that documents the critical information flows and standards and will eventually include critical coalition and joint partner systems. This type of digital engineering allows OCSE and program managers to identify technical risks to interoperability earlier in a program’s development when design mitigations are much less costly to implement versus during developmental and operational testing.

COMMON CAUSE
A common operating environment transforms the Army’s primary tactical operations network into one that allows coalition mission partners to operate on the same network.

CONCLUSION

The Army has set itself on a course to modernize the mission command network and systems to change the way it executes warfighting functions. The four lines of effort are key to modernization success, and the standards are essential to those. By implementing system-of-systems engineering and configuration management rigor to maintain a baseline of commonly implemented standards both within the Army and with our joint and coalition partners, we can achieve needed interoperability to successfully execute mission partner environments and joint all-domain command-and-control warfighting missions. For its part, OCSE will continue to lead the effort to work with the material development community, requirements developers, the Department of the Army staff, and joint and coalition standards bodies to define the standards needed by the Army to successfully execute its mission of winning our nation’s wars.

Establishing a mission partner environment capability involves aspects of the human, procedural and technical domains that collectively enable the Army and coalition partners to achieve shared understanding, mutual trust and confidence, and unity of effort in order to seamlessly plan, prepare and conduct unified land and multidomain operations.

Joint all-domain command and control connects distributed sensors and data to forces from and in each domain—land, sea, air, space and cyber—at the scale and tempo required to accomplish the commander’s intent. Its success is predicated upon ensuring that common data standards are implemented to achieve interoperability across joint partners.

For more information please contact the authors at william.g.langston.civ@mail.mil; steven.g.drake4.ctr@mail.mil; and frederick.j.fable2.ctr@mail.mil.

WILLIAM G. LANGSTON is a deputy director with the Standards & Interoperability Directorate in the Office of the Chief Systems Engineer (OCSE), ASA(ALT). He holds an M.S. in computer information systems from the University of Phoenix and a B.S. in marketing from Arizona State University. He served on active duty for over 6 years with the Army in the military intelligence and military police fields where he earned his Veteran of Foreign Wars and American Legion eligibility. Langston has been working in the information technology industry for the past 25 years; in his current role, he is responsible for cross-portfolio strategic planning, tracking, and management of systems through advanced development, test, evaluation, production, fielding and identifying associated problem issues and risks. He is Level III certified in information technology, an Acquisition Corps member, and has successfully completed the Harvard University Program for Senior Executive Fellows. 

FREDERICK J. FABLE is a senior systems engineer with the Standards & Interoperability Directorate in the Office of the Chief Systems Engineer (OCSE), ASA(ALT). He holds a bachelor of engineering in electrical engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey. He has demonstrated experience in systems engineering and program management with over 37 years of experience within the DOD and commercial sectors. He helped develop MIL-STD-188-220 for Combat Net Radio and the Fires Community as well as Voice Over IP and cell phones for commercial industry. He has performed and executed systems-of-systems engineering, program management, operational analysis, acquisition management, information technology, performance based assessments, interoperability standards assessments and systems integration for the Army and joint communities. 

STEVEN G. DRAKE is a senior network and systems engineer with the Standards & Interoperability Directorate in OCSE. He holds an M.S. in systems acquisition management from the Naval Postgraduate School and B.S. in geophysics from the University of Texas at El Paso. He served on active duty for over 26 years with the Army in the air defense and acquisition fields. His final assignment was as the director for Army Interoperability Certification testing. After leaving active duty, he spent six years as the director for network interoperability, integration and testing for several companies supporting system-of-system integration and testing of command-and-control systems across the Army. He is Level III certified in program management, and Level I certified in contracting.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe

Understanding acquisition is hard. Depicting how it works is next to impossible.

by Steve Stark

In attempting to come up with a graphic representation of how acquisition works, Army AL&T reached out to our contributors across the acquisition enterprise and asked how their organizations fit with other organizations. What we found was far more complex than we ever expected.

As an example, one program executive office (PEO), Command, Control and Communications – Tactical, which leads the Army’s network priority, reported that the organization touches nearly 20 others within the enterprise, with 35 programs. Compare that relatively small number with the Joint PEO for Armaments and Ammunition’s more than 417 programs, which touch nearly every major organization within the enterprise, or PEO Soldier’s 383, which easily touch more than a dozen others. Still, the numbers tell only a small part of the story.

One of the things we learned in this undertaking is that depicting acquisition is a numbers game, but different kinds of numbers tell different stories. How it all fits together depends on how you look at it. With the following graphic, we’re only scratching the surface.

In our graphic, there are dozens of programs and offices listed, and while they’re the core of acquisition, they’re hardly all of it. Overall, there are seven major commands and 42 subcommands within the acquisition enterprise, using numbers from the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center showing where acquisition workforce members work. How you count makes a difference. Most of those commands are not in the graphic.

HOW BIG IS IT?

Inside the acquisition workforce, it can be hard to visualize just how big that workforce is. The scale is mind-boggling. Those who read this magazine may know that Army AL&T often cites the size of the workforce as approximately 40,000. That’s true, but what that means is indicative of just how confusing numbers can get.

The phrase “approximately 40,000” doesn’t mean that only about that number of people work on Army acquisition. That 40,000 includes only federally employed military and civilians whose jobs fall under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA). There are other federal jobs that don’t get DAWIA oversight, but they’re much harder to count.

Of course, people whose jobs are governed by DAWIA are not the only ones who work in acquisition. The PEO for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, we learned, has 399 federally employed workers, of whom 75 are military (a comparatively high number). But in total, it has about 1,900 employees when you add in the contractors who help do the work. Similarly, the PEO for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation has 459 federal employees, of whom 29 are military, but, overall, has nearly 1,000 employees, including contractors. In addition, it has employees in 66 countries working on foreign military sales. So, while the size of the acquisition workforce is about 40,000, it’s also two or three times that size.

WHY UNDERSTAND?

Because acquisition is so complex, it’s fair to ask the question: Why bother? For those who work in acquisition, there are probably three salient reasons. First, because we are spending taxpayer money, we have a duty to do so. Second, by understanding how the parts of acquisition fit together, we are more likely to be able to help all of the parts work together better—the parts of the system itself, but also the parts of the materiel systems. Complexity makes acquisition so easy to misunderstand that it’s easy to either make mistakes or fail to take reasonable risks. Finally, and somewhat circularly, understanding acquisition better helps us understand acquisition better.

THE NUTS AND BOLTS

On paper, traditional acquisition appears to be linear. Or it can be made to look linear. It begins with a need and ends with the divesting of the thing that used to be needed. However, it is no more linear than a coastline, nor is it as simple as the graphic that follows would make it appear. It’s virtually impossible to render how it works in its entirety in two dimensions. That doesn’t mean it can’t be understood. Understanding acquisition isn’t about getting every last thing. And sometimes it means oversimplifying.

The nuts and bolts of materiel acquisition in the Army are thus: The field expresses a need for a capability. That need gets developed into requirements by the appropriate cross-functional team within the U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC). AFC works to turn the concept into a technology demonstration and perhaps a prototype. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has a hand in all of this because it’s responsible for doctrine and training. Everything that’s acquired has to fit within the Army’s conceptual framework of doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF), and TRADOC owns DOTMLPF. (That TRADOC layer isn’t the only level that’s not in plain sight. More on that in a bit.)

That concept from AFC then gets handed off to a PEO within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) for development and execution. Once the capability is built, tested and fielded, it’s handed off to the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC), more or less, and AMC assumes responsibility for sustainment and logistics and, eventually, divestiture and perhaps demilitarization.

However, those exchanges are much more complex than any graphic can show, and differ from program to program. What appear to be dividing lines between the organizations’ responsibilities aren’t really dividing lines at all, because the organizations and their functions within the acquisition enterprise are so closely intertwined. (Bromides like “acquisition is a team sport” don’t just appear out of thin air.) And the system is sometimes circular, too, as with older programs that are being upgraded and sustained indefinitely.

Understanding Army acquisition is hard. Depicting how it works is next to impossible. (Graphic by Michelle Strother, U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center)

CONCLUSION

As might be clear from the foregoing, the three major organizations that make up the enterprise are AFC, ASA(ALT) and AMC. Other major commands that are involved in the process are the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Forces Command and many others. We didn’t put them in for the sake of simplicity.

Acquisition has layers of complexity that are also not depicted. Looked at one way, the acquisition career fields that DAWIA mandates offer a window into those layers. Contracting, program management, engineering, business financial management, life cycle logistics, and test and evaluation are just a few of the layers, each with different imperatives and different work.

So big is Army acquisition that it begins to resemble an infinite coast in the coastline paradox. That paradox has it that the closer you try to measure a coastline, the longer it gets. A coastline is an obviously finite thing, but just how finite depends on how you look at it. Still, it’s not hard to find the beach.

That’s a lot like Army acquisition—the closer you try to look at it, the harder it gets to understand. But everyone knows where the beach is. And, if it were easy to understand, we wouldn’t need Defense Acquisition University.

STEVE STARK is senior editor of Army AL&T magazine. He holds an M.A. in creative writing from Hollins University and a B.A. in English from George Mason University. In addition to more than two decades of editing and writing about the military, science and technology, he is, as Stephen Stark, the best-selling ghostwriter of several consumer health-oriented books and an award-winning novelist.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce.

 Subscribe

After high-publicity failures, defense acquisition experts laud the Army for focusing on products and priorities over process, but bureaucracy remains a threat.

by Michael Bold and Margaret C. Roth

The query to General Micro Systems Inc. (GMS) came in a roundabout way, from a prime defense contractor that had worked with the Rancho Cucamonga, California, company before. The Army had an urgent need for a rugged, rack-mounted server. The prime contractor knew about the TITAN server that GMS planned to unveil at the annual Association of the United States Army (AUSA) meeting in Washington in October.

GMS and the contractor (which for proprietary reasons GMS would not identify) discussed what the Army was looking for, and GMS seemed to have what the Army needed. But they didn’t hear back. “We thought, huh, that’s interesting, wonder how that went,” said Chris Ciufo, chief technical officer at GMS. Then the Army “came roaring back to us,” he said, asking for a proposal within two days. The Army specified exactly what it needed in the system, and GMS provided a formal bid. The Army awarded the contract to GMS and said it needed the servers fast—within six months.

The time from first contact to the award of the contract? Two weeks, said Ciufo.

Welcome to the new era of Army acquisition.

In a remarkably short time, the defense acquisition system and especially the Army, long criticized as slow-moving and bogged down in red tape, are getting new capabilities on contract faster than most would have thought possible five years ago. And other-transaction authorities (OTAs) are the main weapon—although not the only one—in the Army’s push to modernize. OTAs make it possible for the services to acquire new capabilities faster and attract more vendors who traditionally have not engaged with DOD because of the bureaucracy involved, driven by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 provided a major boost to OTAs, highlighting and encouraging their use. “OTAs give us a greater flexibility in our contracting methodology than a pure FAR-based contract,” Dr. Bruce D. Jette, the Army acquisition executive and assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, said in an interview for Army AL&T. “That is a significant value that Congress gave us.”

Organizationally, the creation of U.S. Army Futures Command (AFC), which became fully operational in July, is the single largest development in the effort to speed acquisition, bringing requirements writers, combat developers, scientists and engineers, contracting experts and the testing community together in cross-functional teams early in the process to demonstrably speed the delivery of capabilities to Soldiers.

Together, the increased use of OTAs and the advent of AFC have given rise to a cautious optimism that is more optimism than caution, compared with previous attempts at acquisition reform. Those who have been through, participated in or led earlier efforts see a distinctly brighter future for Army acquisition.

“For probably a decade, I’ve felt like we’re right on the cusp of really significant changes, in the pace of change, and in the way the DOD is going to do work,” said Dan Ward, a former Air Force acquisition officer who specialized in leading high-speed, low-cost technology development programs, wrote two books on innovation and is now a senior principle systems engineer at MITRE Corp. “And I feel like we’ve crested that hill.”

Maj. Mark Cleary, U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation Development Directorate, briefs Dr. Bruce Jette on the Rotorcraft and Aircrew Systems and Concepts Airborne Laboratory in April at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. During his visit, Col. Steven Braddom, right, also gave Jette an overview of major ongoing efforts. (U.S. Army photo)

OTAS ON THE RISE

Other-transaction agreements let DOD streamline the bureaucracy of traditional procurement by awarding contracts faster for prototyping and production. From 2012 to 2014, DOD averaged a little over $500 million in obligations on OTAs. That number jumped to over $1.5 billion in 2016 and to over $3.5 billion in 2018, according to Govini, a data and analytics firm. An analysis by Bloomberg Government says the number will top $7 billion in 2019.

The Army has driven the growth in OTA use. In 2012, the Army had approximately 40 OTAs worth less than $500 million. In 2018, it had more than 220 worth more than $2.5 billion. “When we look at the data … the Army has definitely made a calculated decision to use OTA and other middle-tier-of-acquisition approaches, for its modernization today,” said Andrew Hunter, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington think tank.

“The most important thing about the numbers is it’s an indicator that people are getting more comfortable with the application of the OTAs, that they’re finding good applications in those OTAs, and they’re justified in those OTAs,” Jette said in the interview.

While improved, OTAs are not new. Congress first authorized their use in 1958, with the legislation that created NASA. Congress allowed the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to use “other transactions” in 1989, and their use was extended to the military services in 1996.

“This extension of the authority didn’t come out of nowhere,” said Stan Soloway, president and CEO of Celero Strategies LLC, a business-growth strategy company working with technology and other firms in the government market. Soloway has also served in government, as deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition reform and director of the Defense Reform Initiative during the Clinton administration. Efforts to get what is known as production authority began about 20 years ago, Soloway said, as it became clear that limiting OTAs to just the prototype phase of acquisition limited their effectiveness.

Soloway sees the growth in OTAs as a reflection of DOD becoming more customer-focused in a customer-centric world, responding to the frustration of its customers—be they industry, academia or Soldiers—about “an acquisition system that they do not believe has been meeting their needs, in terms of either time or capability.”

Other transaction agreements require much less from businesses and from the government, making them a more flexible instrument than contracts based on the FAR. (Image courtesy of the authors)

HOW WE GOT HERE

The impetus for the current wave of change in DOD acquisition started in a big way in 2015, when congressional leaders in military affairs—namely Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees—began to “really start pushing on the system by not only pushing the new [expedited acquisition] authorities, but also pushing at organizational changes,” said Jon Etherton, president of Etherton and Associates Inc., a defense policy and business strategy consulting firm. Etherton is a veteran of the defense legislative process, having served nearly two decades as a senior Senate staffer.

The result was an unprecedented volume of legislation in Title 8, the acquisition policy portion of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Milestone decision-making on major programs shifted unequivocally from DOD back to the services with the elimination of the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics. “You had the creation of all these new authorities like Section 804 and the expansion of the other transaction agreements,” to which DOD has responded with enthusiasm, said Etherton.

“What I’ve really seen is, with the new administration in particular, they really want to grab onto some of these things,” Etherton said. “… And I think the Army has been right in the middle of this, especially at the front end of the decision-making,” to start much more rapidly getting on contract and getting the actual work started, with Army Futures Command putting the major players together at the beginning of the process rather than waiting for each to do its part sequentially.

As a result, “we can really start to figure out what works, what doesn’t work—reduce risk and get a much more accelerated process going for some of these efforts,” Etherton said.

ADDITION BY SUBTRACTION

As Naval Postgraduate School senior lecturer John T. Dillard sees it, the most significant change in acquisition to emerge from the past few years of legislation was the elimination of the defense undersecretary position. “Whatever drove that decision, it has certainly reduced the amount of preparation and documentation that program managers must go through for milestone decisions to proceed, halt or alter the course of their programs,” Dillard said.

Defense Acquisition Board reviews were mandated, highly costly and work-intensive “off-core activities” for any Acquisition Category ID project, said Dillard, who managed major weapons development efforts for most of his 26-year career in the Army and now teaches in the Naval Postgraduate School’s Systems Engineering Department of the Graduate School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. “They were only the tip of the iceberg with regard to preparatory reviews en route, and were a significant distraction to the [program manager] that pulled them away from their primary functions.” Thus, the decision for investment milestones now rests with the component acquisition executive.

“The operational side still drives requirements and resources, while the secretariat side executes the acquisition of capabilities needed,” Dillard noted, but “emphasis on prototyping and rapid production has increased. … Real-world threats are driving a palpable sense of urgency in the Pentagon to acquire capabilities faster.”

ARMY FUTURES COMMAND’S MISSION

Just as OTAs embrace innovation, the Army Futures Command aims to do the same—culturally, procedurally and institutionally. “We are trying very hard to describe what problems we want to solve, and then let industry innovate in terms of how they can possibly solve that problem,” Gen. John M. “Mike” Murray, AFC commanding general, told an AUSA panel in October.

“This is about winning, and this is about looking and doing things differently in moving the Army into the information age,” he said. “Because we will not be successful if we just continue to do the same things we’ve always done in the past.”

As always, requirements are key.

From the Army acquisition executive’s point of view, “AFC fundamentally has changed the front end of the process, which is requirements generation,” Jette said in the interview. “And based upon the guidance of the senior leaders, particularly the secretary, the idea is to find a more intimate way to connect the requirements to the development of the acquisition strategy.”

The results are telling, observers agree.

“IPTs (integrated product or process teams) were among the first acquisition reforms we pressed for in the ’90s, because we knew they could really facilitate program efficiency and effectiveness,” Soloway said. “AFC is really an IPT on steroids, and that’s truly intriguing.”

“What I have seen AFC accomplish thus far is to redirect some existing programs of record to make them oriented nearer-term, the focus being upon early-as-possible capabilities,” Dillard said. “Hopefully, this is not so shortsighted as to throw off the investments in longer-term advancements. All in all, it is safe to say that AFC has inserted itself into the process of both combat and materiel developments, and with the power to ‘move the needle’ that comes with four-star power.”

Gen. John M. Murray talks with Soldiers while being briefed on equipment tested during Joint Warfighting Assessment 19 in May at Yakima Training Center, Washington. Murray is the first commander of the Army Futures Command, which many experts agree is the single largest development in the effort to speed acquisition. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Audrey Ward, 982nd Combat Camera Company (Airborne))

BEWARE OF BACKSLIDING

Bureaucracy remains an ever-present threat to the Army’s newfound agility, however.

“The folks on the ground tell me that there are several layers between them and our most senior leaders telling us to do things faster,” Dillard said. “Those layers of bureaucrats and processes are still well-entrenched, and I’m not sure we can remove those layers or if things will go any better without them. Institutional knowledge comes at a cost—it often feels like handcuffs to the folks trying to get things done.”

It is noteworthy that there’s a guidebook of only 53 pages on other-transaction authority, whereas the FAR is over 2,000 pages, and the defense supplement almost as large, Dillard said.

In fact, Stuart A. Hazlett, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for procurement, told a panel at AUSA that he feared writing an official policy on OTAs could produce another FAR. “I’ve been reluctant to write policy dealing with OTs in the Army. … What we don’t want to happen is for us to start writing policy and allow this thing to start slipping out of control and, before I know it, I’ve got a FAR-based kind of approach again.”

An acquisition system that in the past has not had much tolerance for cost increases or schedule delays, and which has responded to ambiguities with more time-eating rules and capability requirements, is now being asked to tolerate mistakes and even failures in the interest of trying harder and faster to get state-of-the-art technologies to the warfighter, Etherton said. Right now, the focus is on schedule, but it is inevitable that cost and performance concerns will surface as well at some point, he said.

“I really hope we don’t say, well, now we have to add all these things and make the system the way it used to be,” Etherton said. “We just can’t go back to that. We have to stay the course and really accept the higher risk, accept that there are going to be problems that we will have to address, but that we have to get into some kind of a new model process. … There needs to be a dialogue on how much of this formal certification reporting kind of things do we really need in this process, to satisfy Congress’s oversight concerns but yet not trigger a creation of more bureaucracy.”

Hon. Ellen M. Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, meets key staff members of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq in November. Joint Task Force Iraq Commander Brig. Gen. William Seely briefs current and future plans in regard to joint operations. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Desmond Cassell/Maj. Charles Dietz)

IN SEARCH OF THE NEW NORM

DOD is in the process of addressing such concerns with a rewrite of its “DOD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System,” which provides the governing policies and principles. “What they’re trying to do is basically take the new authorities, clarify what that process looks like for OTAs and rapid prototyping, rapid fielding kinds of things, and figure out how to integrate that into a process that effectively captures the result and major capabilities,” Etherton said. “I’m not sure that the new 5000 process that the OSD is currently working on is going to do that right at the get-go.

“What I’m concerned about is that handoff process. What does it look like when we get through this initial, quick, first three, four, five years, and then it gets handed off into a more traditional process where you’re basically acquiring a major capability? … I think that’s where the real work is going to have to happen,” Etherton said.

The fundamental principles of sound acquisition, however it may speed up, still need to include “requirements analysis, a proper amount of testing and having an ironclad contract as the basis for dealing with industry,” Dillard said. “Few shortcuts can be taken in these three areas. Unfortunately, all three of these areas had become over-bureaucratized with their voluminous policies, regulations and instructions. Now the pendulum swings the other way.”

Dillard cautioned that “though we have rapidly leaped aboard the OTA bandwagon, … OTAs are still contracts, and they must be put into place by warranted contracting officers. They serve to free us up from lots of unnecessary statutes and regulations, but are no substitute for our doing what is inherently governmental: defining what we expect as deliverables from rigorous requirements analysis and systems engineering.”

“Fundamentally the engineering process does not change,” warned Hunter of CSIS. “Programs that are new-build, complex platforms still have significant engineering challenges.”

Sustainability is another definite concern, Dillard said. “Sustainment is certainly the area that presents risk when doing things on the quick.” It is well-established that long-term sustainment can be the most costly piece of a system life cycle. “Logistic support must be designed in, and that takes a deliberate, iterative effort for suitability and supportability analysis alongside the development, early on and throughout ‘the invention process,’ ” he said.

“Going from prototypes to production-ready systems is a leap that I think is makeable, but the proof’s in the pudding,” said Hunter. “… Before we get too excited about our success, we have to deliver some systems to the warfighter.” 

JCIDS PROCESS ON WAY OUT?

It is by now a given that people really want to move away from the 5000 defense acquisition machinery and start moving much more quickly. “They want to get out from underneath the JCIDS [Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System] process,” Etherton said. The attractiveness of OTAs and other Section 804 authorities, which to some extent were designed deliberately “to get you out from underneath the JCIDS process, to me, that calls the whole JCIDS process into question,” he said.

“Now we have enough information and enough experience [to conclude] that maybe we don’t need a JCIDS process at all, or we need something that is a different approach for what JCIDS tries to accomplish, in a much more agile form,” Etherton said. “And honestly, I think that was the intent by Congress in creating some of these authorities.”

“I don’t think [JCIDS is] going away, I think it is shifting the default,” said Ward, the former Air Force procurement officer. “One of the guiding principles with a lot of this is there’s more than one way to generate a requirement.”

AFC has a leading role to play in the new balancing act of rigor and agility, Dillard said. While the command’s mission extends well beyond experimentation with acquisition approaches other than traditional JCIDS capability-based assessments, Dillard sees AFC—particularly the cross-functional teams of representatives from all the organizations with a stake in the acquisition—as a major influence in speeding up the process. “AFC now is in the mix for coordination all the way up [the chain of command], and hopefully for integration across combat domains and functional areas,” Dillard said. “If it sounds nebulous and ambiguous, I believe it still very much is.”

CONCLUSION

As attractive as OTAs have become, there is concern that they might become an overused, knee-jerk “easy solution,” like new developments in contracting that have preceded them. OTAs are by no means a perfect solution, but they have proved their value as a way to expedite.

“The good part about the OTA is that you essentially get to write nearly a commercial contract, whatever you want,” Jette said in the interview. “The problem in that is it assumes you know how to write a commercial contract.”

“I think there’s always a danger of overcorrecting,” said Ward. “But I think the danger of overcorrecting is a lower risk than of maintaining the status quo. … This is not a zero-risk proposition. But it is a risk improvement strategy. It’s a risk mitigation strategy.”

And so the learning curve continues to take shape. “Are we going to make mistakes? Are we going to misuse [expedited authorities] or use them in areas where we probably shouldn’t? There’s no question in my mind that that will happen,” said Etherton. “But the real issue is, OK, how do we take that information and move forward?”

OTAs currently focus on smaller-scale acquisitions. But in four or five years, with the OTA language that allows for production as part of the agreement, an OTA could very well give rise to an ACAT I program—once the expedited authority has made it past the learning curve, Etherton said.

The learning curve did not start in just the past few years, Dillard noted. For all the seeming novelty of OTAs, he said, “this agreement authority has actually been around since 1958 and is no panacea in itself. OTAs are not always faster and must still include the needed protections for the DOD that FAR-based contracts provide. Let’s not forget that the infamous Future Combat Systems program began with a $240 million OTA way back in 2002.”

Nonetheless, it is clear, Dillard said, that “this time, acquisition reform is working, at least in terms of realizing results sooner. Now those results may not be the 100 percent solution that was initially required or budgeted for. But the user has a bigger vote than ever these days, and it is doing much to steer a very difficult vessel through the ocean of complexity that is acquisition.”

As Soloway sees it, the jury’s still out on whether the Army and the Pentagon are capable of substantive acquisition reform in the next two years. “This is a question that we have been asking for decades. And the answer remains the same: I don’t know.”

“If we can truly modernize the way we develop and train acquisition professionals to align with the historically fast-paced nature of the marketplace and technology,” Soloway said, “what is now considered ‘expedited’ or ‘alternative’ can become part of the normal course of business.”

“If we don’t try some of these things, we’re never going to find out what works and what doesn’t work,” Etherton said. “I want to see people embrace the agility, embrace the speed, and just not have to pay a price for it later on in the process.

“We don’t have a choice,” he said. “We can’t rely on the old system anymore.”

MICHAEL BOLD provides contract support to the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center. He is a writer-editor for Network Runners Inc., with more than 30 years of editing experience at newspapers, including the McClatchy Washington Bureau, The Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News, the Dallas Morning News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He holds a Bachelor of Journalism degree from the University of Missouri.

MARGARET C. ROTH is an editor of Army AL&T magazine. She has more than a decade of experience in writing about the Army and more than three decades’ experience in journalism and public relations. Roth is a Maj. Gen. Keith L. Ware Public Affairs Award winner and a co-author of the book “Operation Just Cause: The Storming of Panama.” She holds a B.A. in Russian language and linguistics from the University of Virginia.

This article is published in the Winter 2020 issue of Army AL&T magazine.

Subscribe to Army AL&T News – the premier online news source for the Army Acquisition Workforce. 
 Subscribe