Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 Program Title Air Force Review Board (AFRB) Date Rank, Name Office.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 Program Title Air Force Review Board (AFRB) Date Rank, Name Office."— Presentation transcript:

1 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 Program Title Air Force Review Board (AFRB) Date Rank, Name Office Symbol Date Updated: December 2014 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRE-DECISIONAL See Notes Pages for additional information This template is for guidance and is not mandatory

2 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Briefing Outline – Key Items BLUF Program Description/Overview CONOPS Requirements Interrelationships MS B Affordability Portfolio Perspective APB--KPPs Affordability Template Tradeoffs Will Cost/Should Cost Product Support Quad Chart Schedule Business Strategy Product ion Rate Funding Program Risk and Risk Mitigation Document Status Exit Criteria Recommendations for ADM Way ahead Back-up Program Office Resources, Technical and Systems Engineering Assessment, Test and Eval Other (e.g.., open actions from previous ADMs, Congressional concerns/funding cuts, industrial base issues, spectrum considerations, etc.) 2

3 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e “Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)” (Decisions Requested & Key program information) Purpose Present Way Ahead for Program Discuss oversight and management plan for Program Decisions you are requesting (examples) Approval Milestone B (if AF is MDA) Approval to proceed to OIPT and DAB/ITAB (if OSD is MDA) Obtain SAE approval program re-baselined/way ahead(Nunn- McCurdy) or MAIS Breach Approve Applicable delegations/waivers List Outstanding Issues Issue 1--CAIG estimate is double current budget Issue 2--TRL level 5 for one of 6 critical technologies 3

4 Required Funding Description Acquisition Strategy  Evolutionary Acquisition  Competitive Risk Reduction / Source Selection  Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson  The Boeing Company, St Louis  EMD-Fixed-Price Incentive Firm Target (FPI(F))  Production  Lots 1-3 -- FPI(F)  Lots 4-5 – Fixed-Price NTE w/ Economic Price Adjust  Phase Verification:  Phase I—F-15E Normal attack  Phase II—F-15E CAM/SAL  Phase III—F-35B and F-35C Integration  250-lb Class, Precision Guided, Air-to-Ground Munition  Kill Mobile and Fixed Targets Through Weather from Standoff  Uses Tri-Mode Seeker & Dual-Band Data Link (Link 16 + UHF)  Services: USAF, DoN  Threshold Platforms: AF--F-15E; USMC--F-35B; USN--F-35C  IMD sensitive (for clarification see notes)  ACAT Level: ID  MDA: USD (AT&L)  PEO: AFPEO (Weapons), Maj Gen Blaster  PM: 918 ARSG/CC, Col Boomer AF/DoN Committed to Service Cost Position Approved 21 Sept 13 Second Increment Miniature Munitions SDB I-Fixed Targets; SDB II-Adds Movers Schedule Program Description/Overview Air Force TY$M FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19Total AF RDT&E86.4192.6133.9127.3106.379.2725.7 FY11 PB RDTE126.5153.5162.4128.669.568.5731.0 AF Proc46.984.4125.7257.0 FY11 PB Proc39.457.174.2170.7 DoN TY$M DoN RDT&E16.532.248.146.570.395.0308.6 FY11 PB RDTE43.744.274.937.642.940.0283.3 DoN Proc10.3 FY11 PB Proc16.3 4


6 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Requirements Operational Requirements When Approved (AOA, ICD/CDD/CPD, CONOPS) Key KPPs—fully identified and clearly stated? Incremental Requirements? All increments contained in one CDD? EMD phase for each increment planned for 5 years or less? How does the program baseline compare to validate requirements How will program achieve information assurance requirements? (see footnotes) Operational Capabilities/Impacts Capabilities / missions (today & future) Relationship to established roadmap(s) / architecture(s) Family of Systems (FOS) / System of Systems (SOS) / Complementary Systems Example for E-10A: MP-RTIP, Global Hawk, MP-CDL 6

7 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 7 Interrelationships, Dependencies and Synchronization with Complementary Systems Mission Planning PFPS JMPS Aviation Platforms: KC-135 KC-10 AWACS H/MH-60 CV-22 MH-47 MH-6 CH-53 A/OA-10 LAIRCM Ground Teams: GAWS SF SEAL STS HC/MC-130 Recap No known issues affecting inter-related programs Resolvable interface issues affecting programs Unresolvable interface issues affecting programs Solid denotes current system Dash denotes future system Arrow to Recap denotes supports Recap Arrow from Recap denotes Recap supports Indicates program are interdependent C-130J: Aircraft Procurement & Block Upgrades Be sure to include CYBER links and infrastructure. Indicate any issues/cybersecurity risks introduced by program interconnection.

8 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e MS B Affordability Basic Questions: Portfolio Related: What adjustments are necessary to the existing portfolio to fit this new program in? What price point for the program would cause reconsideration within the portfolio? Program Related (Cost Capability CAP (Analysis) : What do you (PM/PEO/CAE) think are the cost drivers in your design and why? Are the largest drivers related to technical, schedule or other factors? Is there trade space for these factors that can influence affordability? (If not, it does not go on the chart) If the key trades are technical, what are those elements around which some “sweet spots” can be influenced? Impact of procurement rate (EOQ) and schedule impact on affordability target. 8

9 All Core Functions Affordable within Flat Budget 9

10 All Programs within Core Function Affordable 10

11 Affordable Acquisition Program 11

12 APB Key Performance Parameters Why they matter... 12

13 Proposed Affordability Requirements Cost Drivers & Trade Excursions MS B AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT: NOTIONAL SYSTEM Description Affordability Requirement Current Estimate APUC $22.6M$24.4M O&S $32.9B$35.6B TBD XXX TBD XXX TBD XXX DescriptionAPUCPAUCRDT&EProc.O&S Schedule Impact Original Cost Estimate $26.7M$32.3M$1.32B$15.1B$39.1B N/A - Range Readjustment -$0.3M-$0.4M+$2M-$75M-$100M None - Reliability Growth +$2.2M+$2.3M+$15M+$50M-$1.5B +6 Months - Engine Redesign -$0.7M-$1.1M+$4M$-125M - $75.0M +3 Months IMD Signatures -$0.8M-$2.1M+$5M$-25M - $85.0M +6 Months - Prognostics & Health Management +$0.2M$0.3M$0.0M -$2.0B None - F/A-XY Avionics Reuse -$1.9M-$2.4M-$16M-$50M +$200 M -6 Months - Reduced Ordnance Load -$1.8M-$2.0M+$2M-$15M$0.0M None Current Cost Estimate $24.4M$29.0M$1.31B$14.9B$35.6B N/A Discussion Points: #1 #2 #3 13

14 Cost/unit Performance -- Ship speed ++ -- Missile Tube Size ++ -- Number of Missiles ++ -- Quietness ++ Old Reactor Design vs. New Reactor Design The Solution should NOT be to draw an arrow through this box (like this) $3B $7B $5B 14 SEARch out 3 dllrs

15 Cost Time 15

16 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Should Cost Presentation Template The Program’s “should cost” is the set of program’s initiatives or opportunities to reduce costs below the Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) level. It is primarily the basis for a negotiating position and result for pending contracts that will be below the ICE, but it also includes measures taken to reduce cost beyond near term contract actions. See AT&L guidance memos on developing should-cost targets ( “Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” September 14, 2010 “Implementation Directive for Better Buying Power – Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity in Defense Spending,” November 3, 2010 “Implementation of Will-Cost and Should-Cost Management,” April 22, 2011 “Should-Cost and Affordability,” August 24, 2011 “Implementation of Should-Cost Management,” August 6, 2013 The following charts provide a “notional guide” for presenting a summary of a program’s “should cost” plans and estimates for various program activities; see slide notes pages for key points and tailor format as appropriate to suit the particular initiatives of program. 16

17 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Planned FY16-FY18:$70.292M; EMD Phase 2 (Contract Award) Source Selection Savings FY 17:$24.500M; Flight Body-2 FY18:$26.000M; EMD Phase 2 Test Activities Realized FY13:$ 1.400M; EMD Phase 1 Aircraft Integration FY13:$11.000M; EMD Phase 1 Test Activities Should Cost Summary See Notes Page Ensure all Should Cost Initiatives are PEO-Approved in CCaRS and values are consistent. Use Back-up slides to elaborate on each initiative.

18 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Should Cost Initiatives:  EMD Initiative 1: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate savings Initiative 2: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate savings Initiative 3: Short description and basis for Should-Cost Estimate savings  Production & Deployment (notional) Initiative 1 Initiative 2  Operations and Support (notional) Initiative 1  Other Initiative 1 18 Program Should-Cost Summary Example

19 Should Cost Initiative Initiative Name:  Short Narrative Description of Basis for Should Cost Estimates: (List reasons should cost estimate is below will cost, with dollar impact)  Adjustments and Impacts to Spend Plan  Contract Implications Incentive/fee structure, timing of evaluations & savings realized  Risks List risks to achieving these savings Key Events/Schedule (Plan):  Event  Target Date (Should Cost)  Target Date (Will Cost Short description explaining change in schedule  Event  Target Date (Should Cost)  Target Date (Will Cost Short description explaining change in schedule Instructions:  Prepare one backup slide for each significant initiative (which need not always be largest dollar value)  Which initiatives could be extensible to other programs?  Which do most to affect long term costs? Mandatory Backup Slide

20 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e (List other steps the program is taking to reduce total government will cost, with dollar impact) Other Cost Savings Initiatives 20

21 Product Support Strategy Metric Antecedent Actual Original Goal Current Goal Current Estimate/ Actual Materiel Availability 76%80%77%71% Materiel Reliability 37 hrs50 hrs50.5 hrs48 hrs Ownership Cost 245.6B385.5B395.1B Mean Down Time 12 hrs20 hrs18 hrs15 hrs Metrics Data * Test or fielding event data derived from _______ Notes: Sustainment ScheduleO&S Data MS BMS CIOCFRPFOC Sustainment BCA LCSP CLS Start Depot Standup LRIP Contract Award Blended Partnership Startup PBL Recompete Avionics PBL PBL Recompete Sustainment Approach  Current (initial CLS covering total system)  Future (sub-system based PBL contracts) Issues  Shortfall in O&M funding in FYDP  Reliability and availability estimates are below goals  LCSP requires update before DAB Resolution  POM request for O&M restoration submitted  Reliability improvement plan with clear RAM goals up for final signature  LCSP in draft BCA Cost Element Antecedent Cost ABC Original Baseline ABC Current Cost 1.0 Unit-Level Manpower 3.9525.1445.750 2.0 Unit Operations 6.0526.8516.852 3.0 Maintenance 0.7390.6050.688 4.0 Sustaining Support 2.2982.401 5.0 Continuing System Improvements 0.1290.0250.035 6.0 Indirect Support 1.8461.9251.956 Total 15.04616.95117.682 Cost based on average annual cost per squadron Total O&S CostsAntecedentABC Base Year $M 102,995.2184,011.9 Then Year $M 245,665.3395,147.2 SAMPLE PROGRAM: “ABC” Today Date: ATTACHMENT 21

22 Sample Program Schedule I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e F-35B & C Integration CTV GTV EMD SDB-II Development Timeline* CDR PDR SRR 1 st AUR Avail RISK REDUCTION 2 COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS RISK REDUCTION 2 COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS MS-B F-15E Suite 7E OFP DT IT OT F-15E APG-70 GMTT Dev & Test F-15E Integration Normal attack CAM/SAL F-35 Block 3.X OFP DT IT OT F-35B FISCAL YEAR 20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018 2019 F-35C JROC AOA 1998-2000 To Complete FY19-FY23 12,966 Normal Attack OTRR CAM/SAL OTRR F-35B & F-35C OTRR F-15E RAA F-15E Full Capability F-15E RAA *Will be updated after contract award F-35B/C Initial Fielding 2020 DT IT OT BRU-61/A Dual Power BRU-61/A Delta Qual BRU-61/A for F-35 environment MS-C FRP PRODUCTION LRIP 1LRIP 2LRIP 3LRIP 4FRP 1FRP 2 144250390550 1050 Quantity SVR PCA SVR DT IT OT 83 mos 59 mos CA/Lot Excerpt from 28 Jul 09 SDB II CDD, Cpt 11: - Required Assets Available (RAA): SDB II RAA is the capability to arm twelve (12) F-15Es with two (2) fully loaded BRU-61/A carriage systems each for 1.5 sorties (144 assets total) - DoN Assets for Initial Fielding: Initial quantity of SDB II weapons required is 90 weapons and 22 carriage systems based upon one ten (10) plane squadron with two (2) fully loaded carriage systems each plus ten spare weapons. EOAOA IPR Post-CDR Report Note: Due to delay of MS B, shaded blue region will move right accordingly NEED TO ADD TOP LEVEL CRITICAL PATH

23 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Business Strategy Competition Strategy – How will competition be established and maintained through all phases of the acquisition? – How does the competition strategy facilitate the acquisition strategy? – What is the competition strategy for the upcoming acquisition phase? – How do the results of the last acquisition phase impact the strategy for the upcoming phase? – Provide results of your Business Case Analysis (performed in conjunction with the engineering tradeoff analysis to be presented at MS B, include intended use of OSA) For Each Contract – What is the purpose, type and value of the contract? – How is the contract aligned with the acquisition and competition strategies? – What is the incentive structure and how will the incentives foster contractor behavior resulting in favorable cost, schedule and performance outcomes? – What criteria will be used to select the winning bidder? How do those criteria emphasize what is most important to the government? – Will warranties be employed? How will they benefit the government? – Does the contract anticipate the acquisition of technical data? – Will the development utilize open systems architecture? 23

24 24 Provide explanations and rationale behind the data  What is the Upper Order Quantity and how was it determined?  What are the Economic Order Quantities (EOQ)?  Identify the Program Target Order Quantity if different from EOQ o What prevents the program from buying at EOQ  What is the Lower Order Quantity and how was it determined? o Identify any reason the program may go below the Lower Order Qty * If different from EOQ

25 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 25

26 Program Risks Likelihood Consequence Bell Supply Chain Management to Support Increase to Full Rate Production Driver: Poor performance of key suppliers, long lead times (bearings, forgings, castings), LLT purchase orders, staffing, parts shortages, and limited capacity in critical suppliers Mitigation Plan: Obtain Advanced Procurement in FY10 Hire Govt Supply Chain Manager (V-22) Identify dual source for critical suppliers Rationalize supply base Place Bell reps on-site at critical suppliers Hire staffing to meet demand Utilize Bell gated process for outsourcing Award FY10 Long Lead Support Prime key supplier visits with government representation Production Readiness Review (support FRP decision) Date: COMPLETE Jul 10 (Risk will be closed/deleted next quarter) Ability to Achieve Affordability Targets to Meet Inventory Objectives Driver: Higher than anticipated costs due to Bell enterprise growth (overhead rates); raw materials; cabin; supplier performance; increased labor hours. Two rate increases, Apr Forward Price Rate Agreement and Nov Forward Price Rate Brochure (driven by a reduction in the base vs. predictions, erosion in the commercial business, efficiencies in production, a recent strike, and pension liabilities) have recently created additional budget pressure. Mitigation Plan: Establish Affordability plan Implement GFE CRIs (Engines, OTO) Obtain Advanced Procurement in FY10 Execute Long Term Agreements/Long Term Contracts Finalize SOF inspection requirements Implement cost growth control and cost reduction initiatives Assess impacts of PB11 Budget and rate increases with Lot 7 Production Proposal Include spares in production contract Complete Business Case Analysis for MYP If supported by BCA, ensure MYP budget approval/lay-in and implement MYP to begin in FY14 Date: On-going Failure to Meet Total Ownership Cost Reduction Goals Driver: Delayed I and D level standup, dynamic component DL&T disposition, extended ICS, components not making reliability targets Mitigation Plan:  Conduct BCA for long term logistics sustainment/PBL strategy Stand up Organic Intermediate and Depot Level repair NAVAIR approval of H-1 DL&T’s Execute 5 year Interim Support Plan contract awards CILR drives component redesign efforts/BCAs Date: Ongoing Insufficient funding to execute aircraft quantity requirements Driver: Two Forward Price Rate Agreement (FPRA) increases, Apr FPRA and Nov FPR Recommendation (driven by a reduction in the base vs. predictions, erosion in the commercial business, efficiencies in production, a recent strike, and pension liabilities) and potential additional rate impacts due to Pension Protection Act compliance and projected business base loss in FY14 due to decreasing procurement of V-22s are creating additional budget pressure to execute yearly budgeted a/c quantities and pressurizing APB and Nunn-McCurdy acquisition thresholds. Mitigation Plan: Finalize technical evaluation and negotiation of the lot 7 contract {Leadership intervention as required}  Assess potential future rate increases and impacts on budget across program fiscal years (ongoing)  Pension Protection Act assessment (AIR 4.2 Lead) Business base (DCMA lead) Continue to Pursue cost reduction/control initiatives (ongoing; see affordability risk) Update program manager’s cost estimate Engage Service for funding resolution Support PEO(A)/DCMA rate control initiative with Bell (ongoing) Date: Oct 10 (AH-1Z FRP decision) Oct 2014 26

27 Milestone B – Required Documents 2366b Certification MemorandumARA ARA MDA Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM)OIPT Lead/ARA ARA MDA Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)Component ARA MDA Acquisition Strategy / Acquisition Plan Component ARA MDA Contract Types DeterminationComponent DPAP MDA Cooperative Opportunities Document Component ARA MDA Industrial Base ConsiderationsComponent DASD (M&IBP) MDA Intellectual Property Strategy Component Various MDA Market ResearchComponent DPAP MDA Affordability Cap (Analysis)Component OIPT Lead/ARA/CAPE MDA Bandwidth Requirements ReviewComponent DoD CIO DOD CIO Component Cost EstimateComponent CAPE Component Component Cost PositionComponent CAPE Component Business Process Reengineering (IT only)Component A6P MDA Capability Development Document (CDD)Component A5R JROC Clinger-Cohen Act ComplianceComponent CIO AF CIO Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD)Component CAPE Component Cybersecurity StrategyComponent CIO DOD CIO Review Economic Analysis (MAIS statutory)Component AF CIO Component Exit CriteriaComponent ARA MDA Frequency Allocation Application (DD1494)Component DOD CIO NT and IA Full Funding Certification MemoComponent ARA/CAPE/Comp MDA/CAPE Independent Cost EstimateCAPE DCAPE DCAPE Independent Logistics Assessment Component OASD(L&MR)/DASD(MR) CAE DocumentOriginator OSD OPR* Approver * According to current policy for programs for which USD(AT&L) is the MDA. 27

28 Milestone B – Required Documents Information Support Plan Component CIO AF CIO Net-Centric Data Strategy Component CIO CIO Bandwidth Requirements ReviewComponent DOC CIO DOD CIO Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan (LMDP)Component USD (I)/DASD(SE) Component Life Cycle Sustainment PlanComponent OASD(LM&R)/DASD(MR) MDA Core Logistics DeterminationComponent OASD(LM&R)/DASD(MR) SAE Low-rate Initial Production (LRIP) QuantityComponent OIPT Lead/ARA/DOT&E MDA Manpower EstimateComponent P&R Component Orbital Debris Mitigation Risk Report (Space only) Component DASD (S&I) MDA PESCHE and NEPA Compliance scheduleComponent DUSD (I&E) CAE Program Cert DBS Mgt Committee (DBS only)Component DBSMC Chair Program Protection Plan Component DASD (SE) MDA Cyber Security Strategy DOD CIO Post PDR AssessmentComponent DASD (SE) Component Replaced System Sustainment Plan Component L&MR/MR Component Should Cost TargetComponent OIPT Lead/ARA MDA Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Component SBP MDA Bus. Tech Transfer (STTR) Program Technologies Spectrum Supportability Risk AssessmentComponent CIO AF CIO Systems Engineering Plan Component OASD((R&E)/SE DASD (SE) Item Unique ID Implementation Plan Component DPAP DDR&E Corrosion Prevention Control Plan Component ASD (R&E) Corr. Off. CAE Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA)Component ASD (R&E) ASD (R&E) Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP)Component DT&E/OT&E DT&E/OT&E LFT&E Plan or Alternate LFT&E planComponent DOT&E DOT&E Live Fire Test and Evaluation Waiver Component DOT&E DOT&E from full-up, system level testing DocumentOriginator OSD OPR* Approver 28

29 Milestone Exit Criteria 29

30 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e ADM Proposed language Proposed Acquisition Decision Memorandum language: I have made the certifications required by section 2366b of title 10, United States Code I approve MS B and authorize entrance into Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Affordability Cap is $ (see notes page) I approve the proposed Exit Criteria (attached) XXX YYY ZZZ 30

31 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Way Ahead Awaiting OSD approval of APB OIPT scheduled for XX Date DAB scheduled for XXX Date 31

32 I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e BACKUP and SAMPLES 32 See Footnotes for additional information

33 *See notes section for rating criteria Risks, Issues, Opportunities SYSTEMS ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT: H-1 Upgrade Example Technical RisksMitigation Activities (Closure Dates) R1. Failure to meet TOC reduction goals may cause budget exceedance Continue current plan; expedite cuff/yoke redesign (Dec 2015) R2. Main rotor cuff/yoke redesign not complete in time for test Certification milestone plan developed and monitored by PM. (Jun 2011) Technical Issues 1. Production parts; sparesContinue focus on contractor’s SCM and make parts (ongoing) 2. Structural Repair Manual late to needExpedite approval of DL&T‘s (ongoing with NAVAIR) Opportunities O1. Capture lessons learned; best practices; store in command library Low investment; great benefit for program and NAVAIR Program Health Comments 1. Systems EngineeringSEP ready for approval; IUID held up 2. Design MaturityMature; redesign of MR cuff/yoke 3. ReliabilityExcellent RAM numbers 4. SoftwareNo issues 5. IntegrationNo issues 6. ManufacturingMature processes; 7 LRIP lots 7. KPPs/KSAs 6 of 7 demonstrated, one on track 8. Others SE Issues Significant past engagement through numerous reviews Program and contractor supported SE engagement No further issues going forward SE will remain engaged in the main rotor cuff/yoke redesign Support MS III and transition to ACAT 1C R2 R1 Likelihood Consequence O1 Likelihood Benefit Snapshot Assessment of Program Summary of Risks, Mitigation Steps and Issues/Opportunities Discussion of SE issues being worked Note: Any item not rated green should be addressed in the issues section. If more space is required, to accommodate the technical risks, address the “technical issues” in the “SE Issues” or “Program Health” sections. Delete “Opportunities” if not applicable. FY2010FY2011 PRR MS III 33

34 Cooperative Activities: (list cooperative partners, describe cooperative participation in the program, both current and planned, to include list of actual international agreements-- e.g., bilateral or multilateral discussions, loans of equipment, information exchanges, cooperative RDT&E, co-production DEA/IEAs in technology area, etc.) Foreign sales: (list current or potential FMS or Direct Commercial Sales buyers) Interoperability Requirements: (list all international objective and threshold requirements in program documents (JCIDS and 5000 series); describe plan to achieve those requirements, to include which increment of a program they will be achieved) Foreign technology assessment: (from TDS and AoA; guidance in Deskbook Acquisition Guidebook, Section 2.3.6., identify how 10USC2350a statutory requirement has been met; assessment whether or not a project similar capability is in development or production in a partner nation that could be procured or modified to meet DoD needs) Section 2.3.6. (Identify issues specific to international -- e.g., impact (cost, schedule, performance) of proposed cuts on partner(s)/buyer(s), updated APUC, status of negotiations and impact to US and partners under the relevant agreement(s) (MOU, MOA, LOA) Key Technologies: (description of the technologies and CPI in the program) Anti-Tamper Analysis: (based on ATEA Guidance and Defense Exportability assessment) Differential Capability Analysis: (Assess potential need for development of differential capabilities for a range of anticipated coalition partners in view of the interoperability requirements, cooperative activities, and potential foreign sales efforts envisioned) Proposed Approach: (Describe how design and development of validated AT and Differential Capability requirements will be addressed in the program’s master schedule ) Choose appropriate funding chart below *-from Spruill chart 26 International Cooperation

Download ppt "I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force 1 Program Title Air Force Review Board (AFRB) Date Rank, Name Office."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google