1. CP150 – Serial 2014/0IS03090 (“P90”) New-NMS WGNTE – 9 July 2015
DIS / CES
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

2. Agenda Background Business case Technical solution
Implementation approach
WP breakdown
Implementation cost
Schedule
Lifecycle analysis
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

3. Background
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

4. “Old” NMS project (97/CM00580)
Over the last years, NATO attempts to implement NMS has been inconclusive
Many reasons (not subject of this briefing)
2013: change of technical solution not supported by Nations, which led NCIA to stop the project
JFAI 1Q2016
Currently, the legacy Military Messaging solution (AIFS/AIMS) is the only solution to exchange military messages within NATO and with NATO-Nations
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

5. MMR MMR has been reaffirmed several times in the past few years:
Apr. 2008, AC/4-DS(2008)0010
Jan. 2009, AC/322-D(2008)0045 (INV) “Military Messaging Strategy”
Mar. 2013, AC/4-DS(2013)0007
: updated Military Messaging Strategy (C3B)
Main characteristics of the MMR:
Availability
Integrity
Interoperability
Confidentiality
Authentication
Non-repudiation
Guaranteed delivery
Timely delivery
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

6. Military Messaging Strategy
C3-Board context
4 workshops (2014 – 2015)
National implementations and ambitions are diverse
No clear trend in technology
Updated Military Messaging Strategy
Gateway principle
Under approval cycle since February 2015
TBCE fully compliant with updated strategy
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

7. Default choice for replacing technology
Based on dying technology
Also, based on dying technology but gateway concept is of value
Active investigation needed
The unknown future
Will stay, but serving specific CoI

8. Current system (AIFS/AIMS)
Allied Information Flow System (AIFS)
In house development (Gulf war)
ACP 127
NATO and interface to National Systems
AIFS Integrated Message System (AIMS) is a software tool to assist in the ACP 127 message preparation, coordination, distribution and release.
Supports NS and MS
 Weaknesses:
Relies on the infrastructure, and its inherent availability and reliability
Lacking integrated user interface
Knowledge of procedures is fading
Not meeting all MMR requirements
Decentralized architecture
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

9. Main benefits (or how the MMHS service differs from email?)
High level of robustness and reliability with a 24/7 availability
Secure: Exchanged information needs to be protected against tampering, and source needs to be known
Penetration: Service reaches into the national domains and their tactical domain (e.g. submarines)
Official correspondence between organisations with smart distribution based on content
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

10. Business Case
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

11. Strengths and Weaknesses detailed in TBCE
Options #
Option
Description
Rationale 1
Industrialise the current solution
Ask industry to do a major update (i.e. address obsolescence issues) of the current solution. The additional requirements will be implemented as enhancements to the current capabilities. The resulting solution system will be fully documented and with supporting training material will be developed and made available.
This solution aims to minimize the overall costs and risks. 2
Partial replacement of the current solution
Re-use the interoperability components to interface with partner. Replace the rest by a COTS-based solution.
This solution aims to minimize the overall acquisition costs, and reducing the interoperability risks. The analysis of potential commercial offerings shows that there are several software solutions available which can meet the majority of the New NMS requirements. 3
Full replacement of the current solution
Replace all components that are currently in use for Military Messaging by COTS products.
Similar to option 2, but also modernising the interface to the NATO partners.
Strengths and Weaknesses detailed in TBCE
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

12. Analysis
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

13. Analysis (con’t) and Recommendation!
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
18.5 M€
(ROM)
17.63 M€
20.3 M€
Recommendation:
Option 2
(partial replacement based on a centralized architecture)
Compliance with ITM principles
Yes
Number of users
10,262
Price per user
(Investment)
1,718 €
Possibility of more users without impacting acquisition costs
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

14. Technical solution
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

15. C3 Taxonomy context
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

16. Scope Requirement sources: Operational environment
CP150
ACT SID
SOR’19
NATO Enterprise
C3 Capability and Services lifecycle management policy
C3 Interoperability policy
Operational environment
NS only
No deployment on DCIS / MS
Design will be compatible with DCIS requirements
All NS NATO staff users must be given access to the New-NMS service across the NATO Enterprise
Continuity of service for 13 NATO Nations currently using AIFS/AIMS
Non-operational environment (more details later)
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

17. Logical architecture AIFS continued to be used as ACP 127 gateway
New-NMS to interface through COTS ACP 127 gateway
Eventually connections can be migrated to new gateway (ACP145, multi-purpose) (Nation by Nation)
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

18. Multi-purpose Gateway
Proposed deployment
MMHS Server
ACP 127 Gateway
ACP 145 Gateway
Multi-purpose Gateway
Data Centre (SHAPE, ACO, Mons, BE) 1
Data Centre (Lago Patria, JFC, Naples, IT)
NATO HQ (Brussels, BE) 2
Enhanced Node (MARCOM, Northwood, GB)
Training and Exercise Environment (JFTC, Bydgoszcz, PL)
Training and Exercise Environment (JWC, Stavanger, NO)
Mission Preparation Environment
Integration and Development Environment - PMIC Lab (NCI Agency, The Hague, NL)
IV&V Reference system (SHAPE, ACO, Mons, BE)
NCIS Training School (Latina, IT)
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

19. Interdependencies / Constraints
AIFS (ACP127) – 15 Nations
AIFS/AIMS (MS Exchange) – 13 Nations
Current deployment
BRASS, MCCIS, ICC, etc.
New-NMS
New MMHS strategy
Requirements
(JSSR, PIP, SID)
IT Modernisation
NEDS
E-NPKI
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

20. Implementation approach
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

21. Drivers Perfection is the enemy of good enough  iterative approach
implementation in 3 releases, enabling the Contractor to meet the MMR over time
Embraces recommendations from Software Intensive Projects taskforce: “Deliver early and often”, “Incremental and Iterative development and Testing”, “Risk Management”, “Cost as an Independent Variable”
Use of Off-The-Shelf products (will necessitate to limit the requirements complexity)
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

22. WP breakdown
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

23. WP breakdown (con’t) ! Total INV: 17.63 M€
Description
Procurement method
Cost 1
Enterprise capability and ACP 127 gateway
ICB Best value
14.73 M€ (*) 2
IV&V
Sole source to future PMIC contractor
0.23 M€ 3
PFE Software
Sole source enterprise agreements
0.27 M€ 4
Augment ITM infrastructure
Sole source ITM contractor
0.53 M€ 5
Cyber Defence
Sole source to NCIRC contractor
0.25 M€ 6
ACP145 gateway
ICB Best value (evaluated option)
0.81 M€ 7
SMTP gateway 8
O&M (5 years)
6.57 M€
Total INV: M€
CP150: 14.9 M€ (incl PSC)
(*) including ~3.5 M€ for Special Purpose Networks
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

24. Milestone Description
Current timelines !
Milestone
Milestone Description
Milestone Duration
Milestone Date T1
First Stage Authorization
Sept 2015 T2
IFB Release
6 months
1Q16 T3
Contract Award
9 months
4Q16 T4
Pilot-Release (MARCOM only)
2Q17 T5
Major-Release (all sites)  PSA
12 months
2Q18 T6
Final-Release (all sites)  FSA
4Q18
TBCE Submission
2Q15
1st stage authorisation
3Q15
CAW
APF
IFB release
4Q16
2Q14
1Q16
2014
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2018
Today
Pilot
PSA
FSA
2Q18
2Q18
4Q18
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

25. Lifecycle analysis
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

26. Lifecycle analysis - Assumptions
See TBCE section 7.4
NCIA will be responsible for service provision after FSA (with Contractor support)
AIFS will be fully decommissioned within 3 years after FSA
No additional manpower will be required to run E-NPKI, NEDS, ITM, and NCIRC services for New-NMS purposes
3% inflation
PMIC test facility available at no cost to the project
Hardware refresh on Year 6 after FSA
By the end of 2018, 4 operational COMCEN will be supporting N-NMS:
Mons (SHAPE)
Northwood (MARCOM) (taking over functions from Naples COMCEN by end 2018)
Evere (NATO HQ) (manned by BEL MoD personnel and funded by NATO HQ  cost not considered in the analysis)
Geilenkirchen (E3A) (no details on the agreement between NCIA and GK further to the transfer of functions between Brunssum COMCEN – being closed – and GK)
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

27. Lifecycle analysis - Results!
TOTAL (INV + O&M)
TOTAL O&M
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

28. Lifecycle analysis - Results!
#FTEs
Transition
10 FTEs from AIFS
6 FTE for NMS
24.6 FTEs from AIFS
4 FTE for NMS
23/02/2019
NATO UNCLASSIFIED

29. Questions?
NATO UNCLASSIFIED