JMM BRU Industry Day III Public Affairs Final.pptx

Joint Miniature Munitions Bomb Rack Unit

Industry Day III Shalimar, FL 27 June 2012 Mr. Randy Hinzman Lead Engineer Ms. Cathy Gray Contracting Officer Mr. Dwight Jantzen Program Manager

Approved for Public Release 96ABW-2012-0205 20 Jun 12

The intent of Industry Day is to provide a venue for the Government and Industry to exchange information. Today’s remarks by Government personnel involved in the JMM BRU procurement should not be considered a guarantee of Government course of action in proceeding with the program. The information discussed today reflects current Government intentions and is subject to change based on a variety of circumstances including internal and external comments. Today’s Industry Day should not be construed as a guarantee or promise by the Government for a future contract award.

The formal solicitation, if issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements.

Bottom Line Up Front

Admin Industry Day kickoff Program focus areas JMM BRU strategy Data rights requirements Supply chain management Break Program focus areas Design concept DOORS traceability requirements Packaging requirements Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) approach Evaluation criteria Open questions Lunch One on one discussions ITT Exelis Raytheon Technical Services Co.

Boeing

Agenda

The Contracting Officer is the only person authorized to obligate, direct or commit the Government in any manner

This meeting is unclassified

Please ensure all communication devices are off

No recording devices permitted

All attendees must sign in

Nothing discussed during Industry Day constitutes changes to program planning or requirements

Ground Rules

JMM BRU Strategy

JMM BRU

Program Structure Overview An evolutionary acquisition of the miniature munitions carriage Supports DoN threshold aircraft F-35B, F-35C and carrier integration for SDB II AF-led program SDB II requirements drive JMM BRU ACAT III program Program Execution Initiated with a Material Development Decision – Approved 31 Jan 2011 Technology Development (~ 24 months) Engineering & Manufacturing Development JMM BRU Development (~ 32 months) JMM BRU F-35 Flight Test (~ 48 months) Low Rate Initial Production – 130 carriages (2 lots) Full Rate Production – 1170 carriages (4 lots) Sustainment – 20 year service life

Full and open competition Single contractor for development and production Basic contract for Technology Development with options for:

EMD JMM BRU Development EMD JMM BRU F-35 Flight Test Production Lots 1 and 2 Technical Data Package with Government Purpose Rights Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target (FPI(F)) contract 120% ceiling 50/50 cost share (same for underruns and overruns) Follow-on Full Rate Production contract for Lots 3 – 6 Firm Fixed Price

Business Strategy

Unlimited Rights Data pertaining to an item, component, or process which has been or will be developed exclusively with Government funds Form, fit, and function data Necessary for installation, operation, maintenance, or training purposes Publically available or have been released or disclosed by the contractor or sub Government Purpose Rights Pertains to items, components, or processes developed with mixed funding Release or disclose technical data outside the Government and authorize persons to whom release or disclosure has been made to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose that data for United States Government purposes Limited Rights Contractor funded development completely at private expense Government may use data within the Government but not release outside the Government Rights in Data

(FAR 27.4)

Supply Chain

Pro-active management of the supply chain is imperative for our success Develop a culture requiring nothing less than excellence from the entire supplier base A success oriented mindset starts day one and must continue throughout the program Government is focusing on JMM BRU’s management of the supply chain Supply chain identified as a key contributor to failing programs JMM BRU SOW requires rigorous subcontract management activities JMM BRU Prime manages the supplier base; the Government will participate All phases of the program in accordance with the SOW Counterfeit parts Contractor will prevent the use of nonconforming or counterfeit parts Infiltrating throughout DoD acquisition programs; China is the dominant source* Risking national security, performance, reliability and safety Diminishing Manufacturing Shortages and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Government expects changes; stay ahead of the bow wave; manage pro-actively Supply Chain Management (SCM) *Defense Industrial Base Assessment: Counterfeit Electronics, U.S. Dept. of Commerce - Jan 2010

The Contractor shall document their Supply Chain Management Program and activities in a SCM Plan as an appendix to the SEMP. The Contractor’s SCM Plan shall describe the following:

SCM approach, to include how program requirements are communicated to suppliers, to include timely notification of changes How the Contractor will assure supplier compliance with program requirements, including sub-tier suppliers How the Contractor will continuously assess the overall health of the supplier management organization How the Contractor will prevent the use of nonconforming and or counterfeit parts and raw materials throughout all levels of the supply chain The Contractor’s Supplier Quality Plan to include the following elements: flow down of Key Characteristic requirements to suppliers and prime Contractor’s approach for approval of supplier Key Characteristics Flow down of FAAT and LAT requirements Use of predictive indicators to provide early detection of potential quality problems at suppliers The procedures for delegating Material Review Board authority to suppliers

Supply Chain Management Plan

Design Concept Technology Readiness Assessment

A JMM BRU design concept that meets the requirements listed in:

JMM BRU SPS

JMM BRU PEC

JMM BRU SOW

Focusing on six major subsystems JMM BRU primary structure and outer moldline Power distribution subsystem System Control Electronics (SCE) Stored Energy System (SES) Suspension & Release Assemblies (S&RAs) System internal and external interfaces (physical, electrical and logical)

Government assessment determined the Stored Energy System is at TRL 5 Based on ability to meet JMM BRU SPS requirements RFP focuses on JMM BRU design concept for:

Internal/external interfaces and subsystems listed in Section L, Table 2.2 Offeror provides documented evidence that substantiates the assessment levels Document a technology maturation plan to achieve:

TRL 6 at JMM BRU Preliminary Design Review (PDR) TRL 8 at JMM BRU System Verification Review (SVR)

Technology Readiness Assessment

System Performance Verification Plan (SPVP) Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS)

SPVP includes design qualification, acceptance & flight test programs General description of verification programs SPVP identifies approach used to determine specific performance requirements verified before, during and after each test/environmental exposure Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS) Version 9.X Contractors populate the Government provided DOORS database file with proposal SPVP information DOORS trace of the SPVP for design qualification required for proposal JMM BRU SPS and PEC appendix A requirements DOORS trace of SPVP acceptance and flight test programs Completed during Technology Development Phase JMM BRU SPS and PEC Appendix B and C requirements SPVP and DOORS

JMM BRU DOORS database contains 3 formal modules

PEC

SPS

SPVP

Government Provided DOORS Database

Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level

JMM BRU DOORS module relationships SPVP links to SPS and PEC Two link modules SPVP to PEC SPVP to SPS

Government Provided DOORS Database

Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level

SPVP

Traceability Trace 100% of SPS & PEC requirements to the SPVP for Section 5.2 Design Qualification Program.

While program information is required for Sections 5.1, 5.3 through 5.6, traces are completed during Technology Development Phase Government Provided DOORS Database

Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level

Insert new objects in the SPVP and fill in the information in applicable columns to complete the Section 5.2 Design Qualification Program, then create the links to the SPS and PEC.

Requirements Traceability (Example)

The Requirements Verification Matrix is created in the SPS and PEC as links are made from the SPVP to the SPS and PEC. Information entered in the SPVP is transferred to the SPS and can be seen using the Verification Matrix View.

Requirements Traceability (Example)

Shipping and Storage

Bomb racks received aboard ship by two methods Through supply system (boxed and crated i.e. packaging) Ready to issue/use (delivered with or without packaging) Bomb racks received through the supply system Received in box and crate Sent to I-level for removal from box and crate I-level performs receipt inspection Bomb rack placed in ready to use, short term or long term storage Packaging material discarded Staging locations Ready to use – On trailer in hangar bay or flight deck Short term or long term storage – placed on stanchions in bomb rack storage areas

DoN BRU Storage Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

Large reusable shipping and storage containers are not compatible with DoN CONOPS Shipboard storage constraints exist within bomb rack storage locations Adversely impacts the amount of available storage space in existing maintenance facilities

Shipboard Storage Example Shore Based Storage Example JMM BRU Shipping and Storage

Source Selection Criteria

Utilized when best value is expected to result from selection of a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price Trade-offs will not be evaluated during the JMM BRU source selection Industry is expected to meet JMM BRU SPS/PEC requirements No objective requirements; no trade space No bonus for exceeding required performance Proposals will not be ranked Past performance will not be rated Accuracy of proposal is paramount Government intent is not to open discussions with Industry during source selection But may do so if determined to be in best interest of Government Government will determine the technically acceptable proposals then:

Evaluate lowest price that is reasonable Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Source Selection

Factor 1: Cost/Price Sub-factor 1: Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Sub-factor 2: Reasonableness Factor 2: Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-1: System Performance Requirements Sub-factor MC-2: Design Concept Sub-factor MC-3: Verification Sub-factor MC-4: Systems Engineering Sub-factor MC-5: Program Management Source Selection Factors/Sub-factors

Sub-factor 1: Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculated by summing, in Then Year Dollars, the total:

Technology Development (TD) ceiling price EMD JMM BRU Development Option ceiling price EMD JMM BRU F-35 Flight Test Option ceiling price Total ceiling price for Production Lots 1 and 2 at the most probable quantity Total production ceiling price by lot will be calculated by multiplying the unit ceiling price by lot for Lots 1 and 2 times the most probable quantity by lot for Lots 1 and 2 for all assets Technical Data Package (TDP) with Government Purpose Rights Estimated value of the Offeror’s proposed use of Government furnished elements Sub-factor 2: Reasonableness All CLINS will be evaluated for reasonableness

Cost/Price Factor

Calculation of the estimated values of Government furnished elements will include items listed in Section J, Attachment 7, Government Furnished Property List Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP), Facilities (GFF), Equipment (GFE), Information (GFI). If an Offeror proposes to use GFP/GFF/GFE/GFI, the Government will apply a fair rental value (FRV) to eliminate any cost/price advantage associated with its use. FRV will be determined by taking the items’ estimated acquisition value from FedLog and using the formula found in FAR 52.245-9(d)(2)(e)(ii) with the rental period defined as total time item is in Offeror’s possession. An example of how the formula works:

Item Acquisition Value Rental Time X $100,000 8.5 months (Acquisition Value x 2%) = Monthly FRV $100,000 x 2% = $2,000 (Monthly FRV) (Monthly FRV x Rental Time) = Assessed FRV $2,000 x 8.5 = $17,000 (Assessed FRV) In the event the assessed FRV is higher than the acquisition value, the acquisition value will be used as the GFP/GFF/GFE/GFI adjustment number. The Offeror shall ensure that the use of GFP/GFF/GFE/GFI does not interfere with other authorized Government programs.

GFE Calculation

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-1:

System Performance Requirement Sub-factor MC-1: System Performance Requirement The Offeror’s compliance with all JMM BRU System Performance Requirements will be evaluated to ensure full compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Sub Factor MC-1 System Performance Requirements unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

MOA MC-1.1 Compliance with JMM BRU System Performance Specification MOA MC-1.1 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a signed letter (Section L, attachment 8) that states the JMM BRU design shall meet all system performance requirements as stated in the JMM BRU SPS and PEC without exception, qualification, clarification and/or discussion.

Sub-factor MC-2: Design Concept The Offeror’s design concept will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Sub Factor MC-2 Design Concept unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

MOA MC-2.1: The JMM BRU Design Concept MOA MC-2.1 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a JMM BRU design concept that meets the requirements listed in the JMM BRU System Performance Specification and Performance Environments Criteria.

MOA MC-2.2: Technology Readiness Assessment MC-2.2 is acceptable when the Offeror provides: a technology readiness assessment of the Offeror’s JMM BRU design concept for the internal/external Interfaces and subsystems listed in Section L, Table 2.2; provides documented evidence that substantiates the assessment levels; a documented technology maturation plan to achieve a technology (system and subsystem) readiness level of 6 at JMM BRU Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and technology readiness level 8 at JMM BRU System Verification Review (SVR).

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-2:

Sub-factor MC-3: Verification The Offeror’s System Performance Verification Plan (SPVP) will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. Only the portion of the Offeror’s SPVP applicable to the Design Qualification Program will be evaluated in the MC-3 subfactor. The system performance verification requirements for the Design Qualification Program are identified in SPS paragraph 4.4.2, Appendix A of the SPS and Appendix A of the PEC. If any MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Sub Factor MC-3 Verification unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

MOA MC-3.1: System Performance Verification Plan MOA MC-3.1 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a SPVP that describes the verification approach and verification method that the JMM BRU system can meet all requirement specified in the JMM BRU SPS and PEC.

MOA MC-3.2: Requirements Traceability MOA MC-3.2 is acceptable when the Offeror provides an SPVP that traces to the JMM BRU SPS and PEC utilizing the Government provided DOORS requirements management matrix (Section L attachment 11).

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-3:

Verification

Sub-factor MC-4: Systems Engineering The Offeror’s System Engineering Processes/Approach will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Sub Factor MC-4 Systems Engineering unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

MOA MC-4.1. System Engineering Management Plan MOA MC-4.1 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) that: defines the approach for the conduct and management of the JMM BRU technical effort; reflects and supports the detailed content of the Government SEP; describes the integrated technical and management policies, processes, frameworks (organizational, product, work, and technical data), methodologies, and tools that will be used to support program management oversight, to provide discipline and control of the conduct of the program technical work, and measure technical progress.

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-4:

Systems Engineering

Sub-factor MC-4: Systems Engineering (Cont) MOA MC-4.2. Software Development Plan MOA MC-4.2 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a Software Development Plan that: defines the Systems Engineering, Software Engineering, Integrated Product and Process Development, and processes for the Offeror’s Division responsible for the JMM BRU development and the principle sub-contractors responsible for software development for the JMM BRU; demonstrates software development capabilities and processes that actually are going to be used on the JMM BRU Program have been appraised at Level 3 of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) by a Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (SEI) authorized Lead Appraiser.

MOA MC-4.3. Producibility Plan MOA MC-4.3 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a Producibility Plan that substantiates how its JMM BRU will be produced. This Plan specifically describes the fabrication and manufacturing techniques, design and process parameters that enable the JMM BRU to be fabricated, assembled, inspected, and tested economically and with repeatable quality. The Offeror substantiates the manufacturing readiness assessment (MRA) of the JMM BRU manufacturing process and an associated manufacturing maturation plan to support achieving an MRL of six (6) by JMM BRU PDR and MRL eight (8) by SVR.

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-4:

Systems Engineering

Sub-factor MC-5: Program Management The Offeror’s Program Management approach will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. The IMP and IMS will be evaluated to ensure they include all resources and tasks required to fulfill all elements from the SOW, SPVP, SEMP, Technology Maturation Plan, Software Development Plan and Producibility Plan. If any MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Sub Factor MC-5 Program Management unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for award.

MOA MC-5.1. Integrated Master Plan (IMP) Acceptable when the Offeror provides an Integrated Master Plan that details an event-based technical approach to executing the program and identifies the key program events, accomplishments, and associated completion criteria that include event-based technical reviews.

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-5:

Program Management

Sub-factor MC-5: Program Management (Cont) MOA MC-5.2. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Acceptable when the Offeror provides an Integrated Master Schedule that includes all tasks, hours and resources required to execute the SOW, IMP, SPVP, SEMP, Technology Maturation Plan, Software Development Plan and Producibility Plan. IMS entries shall be substantiated by BOEs and CWBS. IMS tasks, hours and resources shall reflect the tasks, hours and resources contained in the BOEs and CWBS. The IMS shall include the critical path to PDR, CDR and SVR (three separate paths). The Government will choose a task from each path, randomly, and add 30 days to ensure each path adjusts appropriately. The following criteria will be used to assess IMS thoroughness. The Government will conduct this assessment using Steelray Project Analyzer (licenses available at www.steelray.com). The schedule will be able to satisfy all criteria within the assessment. Failure to meet all the criteria will result in the MOA being assessed as unacceptable, it will make the Program Management sub factor unacceptable.

Missing Logic - Less than 5% Have Leads - 0 tasks Have Lags - Less than 5% Relationship Types :

Finish-to-Start - 90% or greater Finish-to-Finish + Start-to-Start - Less than 10% Start-to-Finish – 0%

Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-5:

Program Management Hard Constraints - Less than 5% High Float - Less than 5% Negative Float - Less than 5% No Assigned Resources - 0 tasks Critical Path Test (Goal: Pass)

All tasks, hours and resources required to execute the:

Statement of Work, Integrated Master Plan, System Performance Verification Plan Systems Engineering Management Plan, Technology Maturation Plan Software Development Plan and Producibility Plan Substantiated by Basis Of Estimate and Contract Work Breakdown Structure Steelray Project Analyzer 3.0 will be used to perform all assessments Except Critical Path Tests Individual critical path tests to PDR, CDR, and SVR will be performed manually Utilizing data from Section II (Supporting Schedules) of the IMS narrative The Government will view each critical path in MS Project, randomly choose a task from each path, and add 30 days to ensure each path adjusts appropriately IMS Assessment

Sub-factor MC-5: Program Management (Cont) MOA MC-5.3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan MC-5.3 is acceptable when the Offeror provides a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that is compliant with FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7, as appropriate. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must demonstrate that its small business utilization plan will be managed, implemented, and integrated appropriately so as to ensure successful performance of contract requirements. If no small business participation is possible, reasonable rationale and support should be provided. Failure to submit such a plan will render the Offeror ineligible for award.

Factor: Mission Capability (MC) Sub-factor MC-5:

Program Management

JMM BRU Acquisition Strategy and Source Selection Plan are approved Planning for no discussions – attention to detail is imperative The formal solicitation, if issued, is the only document that should be relied upon in determining the Government’s requirements

Summary

Points of Contact

Please submit questions in writing using the form provided Government will provide answers to questions following the break Following lunch, one-on-ones between Government and Industry will be based on the following schedule:

Closing Remarks image2.jpeg image4.jpeg image5.emf image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image8.jpeg image9.png image10.png image1.png