NGAM Industry Day 29 Jul 10 Brief.pdf

Next Generation Aegis Missile Industry Day

Missile Defense Agency

29 JUL 10

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.Approved for Public Release 10-MDA-5692 (28 JUL 10)

Industry Day Agenda

Time Topic Briefer

0900-0915 Welcome and Administrative Remarks Mr. Rich Matlock

0915-0920 Security Marie Hickox

0930-1000 MDA Director’s Comments LTG O’Reilly

1000-1100 Project Overview Draft SOO Draft Section M: Part 1

Ms. Kari Anderson

1100-1130 Draft Section M: Part 2 Contracting Officer Comments

Marie Hickox

1130-1300 Lunch/Break

1300 Begin One-on-One Sessions

Approved for Public Release 10-MDA-5692 (28 JUL 10)

Security Guidance

Marie Hickox Contracting Officer

Missile Defense Agency

Security Guidance

• All sessions are classified

• Visitors: Electronic devices may not be brought into the facility

• MDA Personnel: Electronic devices may not be brought into the conference

• All attendees must have at least a secret clearance

• Taking notes while classified information is being discussed is prohibited

PLACEHOLDER

Lieutenant General Patrick O'Reilly

Director Missile Defense Agency

Project Overview

Kari Anderson Next Generation Aegis Missile Project Director

Missile Defense Agency

The Ballistic Missile Threat

• Threats are expected to grow quantitatively and qualitatively

- Adversary ballistic missiles systems are becoming more flexible, survivable, and accurate while attaining greater ranges

• Long-range threats from regional states did not emerge last decade, but the potential threat remains

- North Korea continues to develop the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM)-class Taepo Dong II

- Iran is also developing an ICBM/Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV) capability

• Shorter-range threats within key regions are growing rapidly

- Iran, Syria, and North Korea are examples of states deploying short- and medium-range missiles threatening to U.S. forces, allies, and partners

• The threat is inherently unpredictable and requires that the U.S. be well-hedged against future developments

• Implication: U.S. BMD investments must be balanced to enable enable effective defense of the Homeland and defense against regional threats in both the near- and long-term

Iranian Salvo Launch

North Korean Taepo Dong II

• The United States will continue to defend the homeland against the threat of limited ballistic missile attack

• The United States will defend against regional missile threats to U.S. forces, while protecting allies and partners and enabling them to defend themselves

• Before new capabilities are deployed, they must undergo testing that enables assessment under realistic operational conditions

• The commitment to new capabilities must be fiscally sustainable over the long term

• U.S. BMD capabilities must be flexible enough to adapt as threats change

• The United States will seek to lead expanded international efforts for missile defense

BMDR Policy Priorities

– Guidance From The President –

Defending Against Regional Threats

• Assessment: significant new protection capabilities are emerging, but the threat is growing rapidly

• Current Capability

- Increasingly capable PATRIOT point defense against SRBMs

- New AN/TPY-2 X-band radar for detecting and tracking missiles

- Soon-to-be-deployed THAAD batteries for defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles

- Improving sea-based Aegis system for surveillance, tracking, and engagement

- Increasing space-based sensors

• BMDR investment decisions:

- Increase procurement of proven systems

- Invest in mobile and relocatable assets that are flexible and can adapt to changing threats

- Continue technology development

– Improved interceptor variants, including land-based

– Improved command, control, and battle management

– Improved sensors, including Precision Tracking Space Sensor (PTSS)

THAAD Launcher

Aegis BMD

Phased Adaptive Approach

Expanded capability against potential ICBM threat

Phase 1 (2011) Phase 2 (2015) Phase 3 (2018) Phase 4 (2020) Deploy existing / maturing systems against SRBM/MRBM threat

Aegis BMD 3.6.1 with SM-3 IA

AN/TPY-2 (FBM)

C2BMC AOC

Ramstein

Enhanced systems against SRBM/MRBM threat

Aegis BMD 4.0.1/5.0 with SM-3 IB

Aegis Ashore 5.0 with SM-3 IB

(one site)

C2BMC Updates

Improved area coverage against MRBM/IRBM threat

Aegis BMD 5.1 with SM-3 IIA

Aegis Ashore 5.1 with SM-3 IB/IIA

(two sites) Aegis Ashore 5.1 with Next Generation

Aegis Interceptor (two sites)

Enhanced Sensors

Enhanced Sensors

ALTBMD Lower Tier

C2BMC Updates

Enhanced Sensors

ALTBMD Upper Tier

THAAD THAAD

THAAD

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

ProductionTestDesign / Product Development

Production DecisionConcept Development

And Technology Risk Reduction

Notional

Missile Capabilities

Phase III

Next Generation Missile

Goals

• Higher velocity to engage longer range threats and achieve earlier intercepts

• Increased divert and energy management for launch-during-boost CONOPS and “first generation” ICBM threats

• Utilizes Aegis fire control and launch systems ‐ Launched from Aegis Ashore ‐ Integrated into Baseline 5.1 with engage-on-remote

MK 41 VLS

Compatible

Phase IV

Notional

Acquisition Strategy

• Technology Development Phase in FY11-13

- Three competitive contracts to define missile concepts, support analysis and program plans for product development

– Cost plus fixed fee

– Technical design agent

- Multiple component technology risk reduction contracts to address higher risk components and opportunities for improving performance, reliability, producibility and affordability

• Product Development Phase begins in FY13: limited competition among technology development contractors

Technology Development Phase

(FY11 – FY13)

Component Technology Risk Reduction

• Competitive award

• Up to three contracts

• 32 months duration

• Contract award by end of CY

Tasks:

• Indentify technical drivers

• Conduct feasibility assessments and engineering trades

• Assess performance via Mod/Sim

• Risk and technical maturity assessment

• Product development content definition

• Development and life cycle cost estimates

• Conduct definitive experiments to prove feasibility of capability

Prime Integrator Concept Definition• Request for Information Solicitation

Released on 19 April 2010

• Award BAA contracts for technology development by 1Q FY2011

Liquid Divert and Attitude Control

System

Advanced Third Stage

Advanced Second Stage

Nosecone and

Structures

Seeker and Avionics

Prime Integrator Concept Exploration

• Contract Summary

- Full and Open Competitive awards

- Intend to award up to three CPFF contracts

- 32 month period of performance

- Approximately $135M available

• Award Timeline

- Expedited process to award in December 2010

• Teaming

- Exclusive teaming discouraged

• Intend to award without discussions

• No foreign participation at prime or subcontractor level for this phase

• Note OCI Clause H-9 in the solicitation

- Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) rules, procedures and responsibilities as described in FAR Subpart 9.5 shall be applicable to any contract awarded against HQ-0147-10-R-0027 and any resulting subcontracts

Concept Development & Program Planning Contract Objectives

• Develop the Next Generation Aegis Missile design concepts

• Conduct feasibility assessments and engineering trades

- Bound/optimize system performance based on BMDS off-board engagement support quality

- Optimize missile performance based on subsystem trades

- Cost is a key consideration in trade space

• Support performance assessments via Modeling and Simulation that will be integrated into BMDS level M&S efforts (Digital Simulation Architecture (DSA), Single Stimulation Framework (SSF)

• Assess Risk and TRL

• Demonstrate compatibility with (AWS) BMD 5.1 computer program and MK

41 VLS

• Develop Program Plan and Cost Estimates (Development, Life Cycle Cost, and Average Unit Production Cost)

• Production Planning

• Conduct definitive experiments to prove feasibility of capability

Key Contract Deliverables

• Models and simulations compliant with MDA Digital Simulation Architecture

• Technology Driver Assessment

• Impacts of BMDS architecture trades on missile design

• Performance Analysis Predictions

• Performance Trade study results and recommendations with supporting analysis

• Integrated Master Schedule for Product Development Phase

• Development, Life Cycle and AUPC cost estimates

• Technology Assessment

• Risk Assessment and Risk Mitigation Plan

• Concept Manufacturability Assessment

Time Phased Deliverables

Government Furnished Information

• Threat Information (e.g., trajectories, signatures)

• Reference missions (launch points, threat cases, raid scenarios)

• System (external sensors) data (e.g., track accuracy, discrimination state)

• Launcher constraints

• Transportation, Storage and MK-41 VLS environments

• Aegis BMD interfaces

• MK-72 Booster Interfaces

• Applicable Agency Core Standards

• Access to information developed under Technology Risk

Reduction contracts

• Relevant MDA instructions

MDA Expectations for Concept Development & Program Planning Contracts

• Fielding by 2020 time frame requires a supplier who can develop and deliver a high performing, quality product on schedule and within cost

- Proven capability and capacity to develop and deliver is essential

• The concept development and program planning contracts will shape the planning for the Product Development program

- We want experienced, proven teams to ensure MDA/Industry partner success

Summary

• Industry comments due 3 August 2010 on Executive Summary, Draft Statement of Objectives, and Draft Section M

• Draft Request For Proposal and Draft Section L to follow shortly

• We are on an aggressive timeline

• We want to ensure a Full and Open competition

• Your honest feedback is essential to helping us get this right!

Draft Statement of Objectives (SOO)

Draft SOO

• Develop a Next Generation Aegis Missile design concept using the government’s performance baseline as a departure point

• Ensure the Next Generation Aegis Missile concept interfaces are compatible with the Aegis Weapon System BMD 5.1 computer program and the MK 41 VLS

• System Engineering

- Disciplined Process

- Trades to bound feasibility within BMDS operational system constraints

- System /Weapon System Attributes Trades

- Missile Attributes Trades

- Performance Analysis

• Models and Simulation (M&S)

Draft SOO (Continued)

• Product Development Planning and Definition

- Define a production qualification, hardware in the loop (HWIL) and flight test campaign

- Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated

Master Plan (IMP) for the Product Development Phase

- Estimates of development, production and life cycle costs for the concept including recommendations for cost reduction

- Concept of operations for the tactical employment of the Next Generation Aegis Missile

• Technology Readiness Assessment

• Risk Assessment

Draft SOO (Continued)

• Production Planning

- Planning of the procurement of electronic piece parts

- Policies and procedures in place to protect the life and well being of contractor and Agency employees, the public, and MDA property and equipment

- Develop concepts and designs leading to a robust and reliable engineering products

- Plan and conduct a Mission Assurance (MA) program that cost effectively integrates MA requirements into the design, manufacture, and test

- Perform a Failure Modes Effect Criticality Analysis (FMECA) concurrently with the concept and design efforts

• Program Management

- Establish a program office and implement a system to ensure integrated cost, schedule, and technical performance management

Draft Section M (Part 1):

Evaluation Criteria

Technical and Management Factors

Draft Section M – Evaluation Criteria

• Full and open competition

- Intend to award up to three contracts

• Selections based on best value offeror

• Proposal Evaluation Criteria in descending Priority Order

- Factor 1 (F1): Technical

– Subfactor 1: System Engineering

– Subfactor 2: Technical Capabilities

– Subfactor 3: Program Planning Approach

- Factor 2 (F2): Management

- Factor 3 (F3): Past Performance

- Cost/Price proposal not a ranked evaluation factor

• In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), when combined, non-cost/price factors significantly more important than cost/price factor

• Risk will be a part of the Government’s evaluation of all factors and subfactors; risk will be considered when assigning a color rating

Draft Evaluation Criteria – Technical Factor

• Technical evaluation to focus on:

- Offeror’s technical competence and proposed technical approach to assess the contractor’s ability to provide credible and sound products to accomplish the Statement of Objectives (SOO)

• Subfactors:

- Technical Subfactor (TS1) – System Engineering

- Technical Subfactor (TS2) – Technical Capabilities

- Technical Subfactor (TS3) – Program Planning

Approach

• Technical subfactors TS1 and TS2 are of equal importance and each is slightly more important than TS3

Subfactor (TS1) – Systems Engineering

• Systems engineering approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which a credible approach has been provided:

- Detailed Performance Work Statement (PWS)

- A structured and systematic systems engineering process

- Trade studies which address a full range of potential concepts for the missile architecture and functionality with Aegis Weapon Systems (AWS) BMD AWS 5.1 and Mk 41 VLS

- Technology maturity and risk assessment of concepts

- Analytical approach to include trade studies, performance modeling, and performance assessments

Subfactor (TS2) – Technical Capabilities

• The extent to which the Offeror’s proposal states clearly and provides credible evidence of the Offeror’s capability and capacity to execute product development and integration, including:

- Extensive, direct experience designing and manufacturing ballistic missile defense interceptors and kinetic warheads, including technology assessment and insertion

- Capability in the planning and execution of Missile development, production, and life-cycle support as demonstrated on prior missile programs

- Demonstrated missile production capability and capacity

- Proven delivery of a Next Generation Aegis Missile class system for a production rate of at least four missiles per month

Subfactor (TS2) – Technical Capabilities (Continued)

- Extensive expertise and experience in weapon system - Missile integration….

- Direct experience planning and executing comprehensive ground and flight test programs for Missile components and systems for design verification, safety, and component qualification

- Proven expertise for systems engineering, weapon system modeling and simulation….

- Demonstrated contractor and key supplier's quality, safety, and mission assurance processes, function, and adherence to the intent of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Mission Assurance Provisions

Subfactor (TS3) – Program Planning Approach

• Approach to generating a complete and realistic follow-on development, production, and deployment program description, including tasks, knowledge points, schedules, and cost estimates

• How well the program planning approach:

- Defines all development tasks and milestones

- Defines a schedule that captures all tasks and task interrelationships, critical path, schedule risks, and external dependencies

- Provides development, production and life cycle cost estimates

- Provides a Performance Work Statement (PWS) that defines a detailed description of all efforts for the Product Development Phase

- Provides an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and event-based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

Draft Evaluation Criteria Management Factor

• Management evaluation to focus on:

- Demonstration of relevant policies, methodologies, processes, range and depth of personnel, capacity, financial stability, and resources to manage, track and execute a management plan that includes

- Management Plans and Processes

– Program Management

– Teaming and Subcontractor Management

– Key Personnel and Staffing Management

– Risk Management

– Configuration/Change Management

– Quality Assurance Management

– Security/Information Assurance/Safety Management

– IMS and Planning and Execution Activities

- Subcontract Management

- Small Business Utilization

Draft Section M (Part 2):

Evaluation Criteria

Past Performance Factor and Cost/Price

Draft Evaluation Criteria – Past Performance

• Government will conduct past performance assessments to include key subcontractors

• Past performance is an integrated assessment of

- Recency

– Has the work been performed in the last 5 years?

- Relevancy

– Does the work involve building missiles?

- Quality

– Did you build the deliverable using quality standards and did it work like it was supposed to?

– Did you deliver on time and within budget?

- Small business utilization

– Did you meet your proposed goals?

• Assessment will result in an overall Performance

Confident Rating

Draft Evaluation Criteria – Past Performance (Continued)

• Past Performance Assessment Data

- Offeror’s information

- Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels,

- Interviews with program managers and contracting officers

- Other Government sources

• Note that Past Performance Volume will be submitted earlier than the technical and cost volumes

Draft Evaluation Criteria – Cost/Price Factor

• Cost will be evaluated using the Offeror's overall cost proposal, the Government's independent estimate, and various cost and/or price analysis techniques, IAW FAR Part 15.404

• Cost Reasonableness

- Assess the reasonableness of the individual elements used to make up the direct labor rates by labor category, material, Other Direct Cost (ODC), labor hours, and associated burdens and factors

• Cost Realism

- Assess the likelihood the technical and management approaches proposed can be accomplished at the cost proposed

- Used to determine the most probable cost

Draft Evaluation Criteria – Cost/Price Factor (Continued)

• Probable Cost: The Probable Cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value

- Consists of:

1. Proposed cost and fee for all CLINS

2. Adjustments to reflect any additions or reductions in labor hours, direct and indirect rates, or other costs, when appropriate, to realistic levels based on the results of cost realism analysis

3. Government specific assessed values associated with Government Furnished Property (GFP)

4. Any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (i.e. storage facilities)

• Probable Cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal

• No color or adjective rating system for this factor

• CLIN 0001

- Basic Performance as defined in the (SOO) for Concept

Definition and Program Planning

- Cost plus fixed fee (completion)

• CLIN 0002

- Data

- Not Separately Priced

• CLIN 0003

- Other Direct Costs

- Examples include travel, renewable licenses, leases, consultants, special tooling, and royalties

- Cost (non fee bearing)

Draft CLIN Structure

Contracting Officer Comments

• Points of Contact (include both on all correspondence):

- Contracting Officer: Marie L. Hickox (Marie.Hickox@mda.mil)

- Contract Specialist: Tuyet H. Bailey (Tuyet.Bailey@mda.mil)

• All applicable documents (with the exception of classified) will be posted on FedBizOpps

• All comments and questions must be submitted in writing via e-mail to the Contracting Officer

• Verbal comments or questions will not be accepted

• All communications concerning this acquisition MUST BE coordinated through the Contracting Officer

• Register at http://www.fedbizopps.gov to receive e-mail notification regarding this solicitation

• NOTE: If you hear conflicting guidance, ask a question!

Contracting Officer Comments

Ground Rules for One on One Sessions

Ground Rules for One on One Sessions

• Allow companies who are interested in being prime contractors for this effort, an opportunity to discuss aspects of the company’s potential solution with respect to the requirements for this program

• Time limits will be strictly enforced

- Use the time to your benefit

- Not a marketing session nor an audience for capability briefings

• Questions and Answers that are non-proprietary in nature will be published on FedBizOpps

• Please have your team assembled at the door 5 minutes prior to the assigned session time

BACKUP

Systems Engineering Trade Attributes

• Design for reliability and quality, minimize single point failures, no blind assemblies, cables/connectors, in-house supply chain concepts, etc.

• Maximize High Altitude Exo-Atmospheric Nuclear Survivability (HAENS) core standard compliance

• Digital models compliant with MDA Standards and Specifications

• Compare performance and risks of all solid propellant and solid / liquid propellant based designs

• Compatibility with the AWS BMD 5.1 and MK 41 vertical launch system

• Leverage BMDS distributed architecture capability

• Design to cost (Development, LCC, and AUPC)

• Other trades: Multi-Frequency Data Link, discrimination, Guidance, Navigation and Control (GNC), seeker, Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), battery, Anti-Tamper, Insensitive Munitions, nosecone, hit/kill assessment