Attachment II- DON Budget Formulation.docx

Attachment II: Demonstration Scenarios Respondents selected for a live demonstration must be prepared to showcase their solution's ability to execute the following four scenarios. The goal is to demonstrate the tool's flexibility, analytical power, and ease of use in a Navy-relevant context.

Scenario 1: The Acquisition Command - "Future Frigate Program" Objective: Demonstrate the tool's ability to manage a complex, multi-year Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) budget with different appropriation types and shifting requirements.

Context: You are a budget officer at Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) managing the "Future Frigate Program" (FFG-Next). The program is transitioning from RDT&E to the procurement phase.

Demonstration Steps:

1. Build the Baseline:

· Create a 5-year budget profile (FY26-FY30) for FFG-Next.

· Input RDT&E, Navy (RDT&E,N) funding for FY26 ($200M) and FY27 ($150M) to cover final systems integration and testing.

· Input Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) funding starting in FY28 to procure the first two hulls at a unit cost of $950M each ($1.9B total in FY28). Show procurement of two additional hulls in FY29 and three in FY30.

2. Execute a Mid-Year Change:

· A congressional "plus-up" adds $75M in RDT&E,N funding to the FY26 budget for hypersonic missile integration. Demonstrate how this new funding line is added, sourced, and tracked without disrupting the baseline budget. Show how the tool captures the justification for this change.

3. Model a "What-If" Drill:

· Senior leadership directs you to model a 15% reduction to the SCN appropriation for FY29.

· Demonstrate how the tool calculates the impact of this cut. Show how the reduction forces a change from procuring two hulls to only one in that fiscal year, and calculate the out-year impacts on the overall delivery schedule.

· Show how the tool supports capturing this unfunded requirement to be tracked through to year of execution to support further scenario and tradeoff analysis.

4. Reporting:

· Generate a "before and after" report showing the budget impact of the 15% reduction.

· Generate a time-phased report showing the full 5-year funding profile by appropriation (RDT&E,N vs. SCN).

· Show how the tool supports year of execution spend planning, capturing unfunded and funded requirements requiring ongoing management throughout execution.

Scenario 2: The Golden Fleet - "Carrier Strike Group Deployment" Objective: Demonstrate the tool's ability to build and manage an operational budget based on OPTEMPO (Operating Tempo) and personnel readiness for a major fleet command.

Context: You are the budget officer for The Golden Fleet (e.g., U.S. Pacific Fleet or U.S. Fleet Forces Command), responsible for funding a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) preparing for a seven-month deployment. The budget is primarily funded by Operations and Maintenance, Navy (O&M,N).

Demonstration Steps:

1. Build the Deployment Budget:

· Create a budget for the fiscal year, broken down by fiscal period.

· Demonstrate formulating the budget for steaming days, flight hours, and maintenance availabilities based on the pre-deployment work-up cycle and the deployment itself.

· Show how the tool budgets for key expense categories, such as Fuel (POL), repair parts (consumables), and ship-to-shore communications.

2. Manage Personnel Costs:

· Show how the system can model and track Military Personnel, Navy (MPN) costs associated with the CSG's sailors, including factoring in costs for Permanent Change of Station (PCS) moves for incoming personnel prior to deployment.

3. Analyze a Readiness Scenario:

· The deployment is unexpectedly extended by 30 days. Model the budgetary impact of this extension.

· Show the calculated increase in POL, maintenance, and operational supply costs. The tool should clearly identify the funding shortfall for the fiscal year caused by this change.

4. Reporting:

· Generate a dashboard view showing the CSG's total budget broken down by major expense type (e.g., Personnel, OPTEMPO, Maintenance).

· Produce a budget vs. actuals report for Q1, assuming some funds have been executed.

Scenario 3: The Headquarters Command - "Strategic Portfolio Review" (This scenario remains the same as previously defined) Objective: Demonstrate the tool's strategic analysis and portfolio management capabilities for senior leadership decision-making.

Context: You are an analyst at the office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities (OPNAV N9). You are preparing for a Program Objective Memorandum (POM) review and must analyze trades between competing priorities.

Demonstration Steps:

1. Aggregate a Portfolio:

· Create a simplified portfolio view consisting of three major programs:

1. The "Future Frigate Program" (from Scenario 1).

2. A "Next-Gen Fighter" program (funded by Aircraft Procurement, Navy - APN).

3. A "Cyber Resilience" initiative (funded by O&M,N).

2. Execute a Strategic Trade-Off:

· Leadership has directed a $500M budget cut across this portfolio for FY28 to fund an urgent, unrelated readiness need.

· Demonstrate how your tool allows an analyst to model different ways to apply this cut:

2. COA 1: Defer the procurement of one Future Frigate.

2. COA 2: Reduce the procurement of Next-Gen Fighters by a set number of aircraft.

2. COA 3: Apply a 10% cut across all three programs.

· Show how the tool presents these different Courses of Action (COAs) side-by-side for comparison.

3. Link to Strategy:

· Assuming the "Cyber Resilience" initiative is tagged as the CNO's #1 priority, show how the tool can flag COAs that disproportionately cut funding from high-priority programs.

4. Reporting:

· Generate a high-level summary brief (e.g., a one-page PDF or dashboard view) comparing the three COAs, suitable for a flag-level officer. It should clearly state the programmatic impact (e.g., "Delays frigate delivery by 1 year") of each option.

Scenario 4: The Consolidated Enterprise View - "DON Budget Roll-Up" Objective: Demonstrate the tool's ability to consolidate disparate budget inputs into a single, cohesive enterprise-level view for department-wide analysis.

Context: You are a budget analyst in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management and Comptroller) (ASN(FM&C)). Your task is to review the consolidated pre-PBIS budget submissions from NAVSEA, The Golden Fleet, and other commands.

Demonstration Steps:

1. Consolidate Data:

· Using the budget data created in Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, demonstrate how the tool aggregates these separate inputs into a single, unified DON-level database.

· Show a top-level dashboard that displays the total budget, broken down by major appropriation (SCN, RDT&E,N, O&M,N, etc.).

2. Perform Data Validation and Analysis:

· Demonstrate a report that identifies the commands with the largest budget growth or decline year-over-year.

· Show how an analyst can "drill down" from the top-level SCN appropriation total all the way down to the individual "Future Frigate Program" line item created in Scenario 1.

3. Prepare for Submission:

· Demonstrate the final workflow step where the consolidated budget is "locked" and approved, creating an auditable snapshot.

· Show how the system can export the entire consolidated budget submission into a data format (e.g., CSV or structured text file) suitable for ingestion into the PBIS system.

· Generate an OP-5 budget exhibit for The Golden Fleet program from scenario 2. This should include the justification and detailed breakdown for funds requested for this program as required for congressional reporting.