Attachment_07_-_ACV_Systems_Engineering_Plan_(SEP).docx

Attachment 07 ACV Systems Engineering Plan Document Identification Number ACV-PLN-02003 2 Sep 2014

Amphibious Combat Vehicle Phase 1 Increment 1

ACAT IC

Systems Engineering Plan Draft Version 0.3

Supporting Milestone B And Engineering and Manufacturing Development Phase

2 September 2014

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (OSD) APPROVAL

Stephen Welby Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) Systems Engineering Date

ACV-PLN-02003 UNCLASSIFIED

i

SUBMITTED BY

Joseph Was Assistant Program Manager – Engineering Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault

John Garner Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault

CONCURRENCE

James Smerchansky Deputy Commander Systems Engineering, Interoperability, Architecture and Technology Marine Corps System Command

William Taylor Program Executive Officer, Land Systems

COMPONENT APPROVAL

Mary E. Lacey Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition)

Table of Contents

Tables and Figures Tables:

Figures:

SEP Update Record

Formatting updates Draft

0.3

Incorporated comments from Team Review2 Formatting updates Draft

Introduction The Amphibious Combat Vehicle Phase 1 Increment 1 (ACV 1.1), hereafter referred to as ACV, Material Development Decision Acquisition Decision Memorandum authorized entry at Milestone (MS) B on June 4, 2014. The ACV program is an incrementally phased, evolutionary acquisition program with program initiation at MS B in 2015. A Defense Acquisition Board Interim Program Review (DAB IPR) will occur to authorize release of the Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). The requirements for the DAB IPR include the results of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) and associated affordability assessment, a Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved Capabilities Development Document (CDD), an Acquisition Strategy (AS), a draft Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), and a draft Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). This is the initial ACV SEP in support of the DAB IPR to release the RFP.

The ACV Program will initiate at MS B due to the maturity of both the requirements and the prospective competitor design solutions. The ACV requirements represent an evolution of the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) requirements. The MPC Technology Demonstrator (TD) was built with the intent to verify the accuracy of the vehicle baseline model and to enable greater fidelity in requirements tradeoff and feasibility analysis across five focus areas: mobility; survivability; electrical power; Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) integration; and vehicle health monitoring. The MPC TD was used to better define key performance parameter (KPP) and Key System Attribute (KSA) requirements relative to other wheeled and tracked vehicles. In addition to the MPC TD, the Marine Corps funded four Contractors to provide vehicles to demonstrate potential ACV capabilities for tactical water mobility, payload capacity, survivability, force protection, and human factors. The requirements for ACV were developed using the MPC TD testing, Contractor capability demonstrations, and a comprehensive systems engineering process to assess the cost and technical risk of each requirement. As such, the ACV requirements are assessed as affordable and technically achievable. As a result of various engagements with industry, there are several potential Contractors interested in competing for the ACV EMD contracts. Each of these Contractors has a Non-Developmental Item (NDI) design that has a high likelihood of meeting the ACV requirements.

The ACV will be a family of vehicles consisting of a Personnel variant and, as part of a future increment, additional supporting mission role variants such as a Command and Control variant and a Recovery variant. The ACV development will have up to two (2) competitive contracts through design, build, and competitive testing of the EMD vehicles. Following the competitive testing, down selection to one Contractor will take place for Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Rate Production (FRP).

Purpose The purpose of this version of the SEP is to outline the Systems Engineering (SE) and technical management efforts during the EMD phase of the ACV program. This SEP serves as the “living” “go to” technical planning document defining the blueprint for the conduct, management, and control of the technical aspects of the program. This SEP will be used by:

· Program Manager Advanced Amphibious Assault (PM AAA)

· Program Executive Office Land Systems (PEO LS)

· Assistant Secretary of the Navy (ASN) Research, Development & Acquisition (RD&A)

· Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) Plans, Policies and Operations (PP&O)

· Combat Development and Integration (CD&I) )

· Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC)

· MCSC Deputy Commander Systems Engineering, Interoperability, Architectures, and Technology (DC SIAT)

· Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)/Directorate Systems Engineering The Contractors will be required to submit a Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) that aligns with this SEP. The SEMP describes the Contractor’s technical approach and proposed plan for the conduct, management, and control of the integrated SE effort consistent with the SEP. Together, the SEP and SEMPs will describe the entire SE effort for the ACV program.

Approach for SEP Updates The SEP will be reviewed and updated as necessary to support milestone reviews, after contract award, to support the conduct of all SE technical reviews, or due to events that cause a significant change in resources, personnel, technical strategy, etc. SEP reviews and updates are coordinated and managed via the ACV Systems Engineering Working-Level Integrated Product Team (SE WIPT). The SE WIPT reviews and provides early input to the SEP and other SE documentation as well as coordinates and facilitates SEP staffing for concurrence and approval by designated authorities.

OSD approves SEP updates to support milestone reviews and major program restructures. PEO LS and DC SIAT approve SEP updates to reflect changes in planned SE technical reviews. PM AAA approves SEP updates to reflect changes in ACV’s processes and procedures (i.e. Risk Management Process or Requirements Development Process) or technical approach. Assistant Program Manager – Engineering (APM-E), approves updates that do not affect the information already contained in the SEP (i.e. editorial changes).

Program Technical Requirements Architectures and Interface Control Architecture information, which is contained within the Net Ready KPP (CDD ACV 1.1 Draft Version 3.0 Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC) approved 29 APRIL 2014), shall be referenced and is the architecture content contained within this SEP. Architecture information developed for ACV will allow for analysis of the system’s ability to meet all Mission Performance Objectives and KPPs.

Department of Defense Architecture Framework Development Efforts Department of Defense Architecture Framework (DoDAF) views were developed in support of ACV in accordance with the DoDAF version 2.02, CJCSI 6212.01F, USMC Integrated Architecture Process and Viewpoint Guide, Version 1.01, 21 September 2011, and other applicable references. ACV complies with the DoD Net-Centric Data Strategy and DoDD 8320.2 Data Sharing in a Net-Centric Department of Defense requirements and intent. The Architecture was approved on 23 APRIL 2014. The Chief Operational Architect and Chief Systems Architect have:

Registered the final architecture description in the Marine Corps Architecture Registry Service, https://catalog.ces.mil/.

All standards identified and described in the Standard Viewpoints (StdV-1 and StdV-2) have been properly published to Global Information Grid (GIG) Technical Profiles.

Ensured that final version of the architecture description has been properly posted and made available on the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Collaborative Architecture Environment (MCAE) website for use by the customer(s).

The ACV platform will not produce any unique data; all data will be produced and consumed by Command, Control, and Communication (C3) systems that will be installed in the vehicle. Installed systems will be managed (i.e., storage, transport, servicing and accountability) by the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) System Center – Charleston and provided by operational units.

Architecture Developers and Approval Authority Architecture Developers Operational Architect: Operational Architecture Branch, Command and Control Integration Division, Capabilities Development Directorate, HQMC, CD&I Systems Architect: Chief Systems Architect, Interoperability and Supportability Certification Branch, Systems Engineering, Interoperability, Architectures and Technology Technical Architect: Information Assurance and Joint Requirements Division, Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) Directorate, MARCORSYSCOM Operational View (OV) Feasibility and System View (SV) Reviews: DC SIAT, MARCORSYSCOM Approval Authority

OV: HQMC, CD&I

SV: SIAT MARCORSYSCOM

Architecture Views This architecture description contains the architecture views listed below. Each view has been reviewed and approved as Final Version 1.0, developed using the DoDAF 2.02 and submitted for ACV in support of the current CDD:

AV-1 Overview and Summary Information, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 AV-2 Integrated Dictionary, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-1 Vision, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-2 Capability Taxonomy, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-3 Capability Phasing, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-4 Capability Dependencies, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-5 Capability to Organizational Development Mapping, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-6 Capability to Operational Activities Mapping, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 CV-7 Capability to Services/Systems Mapping, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-1 High-Level Operational Concept Graphic, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-2 Operational Resource Flow Description, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-3 Operational Resource Flow Matrix, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-4 Organizational Relationships Chart, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-5a Operational Activity Decomposition Tree, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-5b Operational Activity Model, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 OV-6c Event-Trace Description, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 DIV-1 Conceptual Data Model, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 DIV-2 Logical Data Model, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 PV-2 Project Timelines, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-1 Systems Interface Description, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-2 Systems Resource Flow Description, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-3 Systems-Systems Matrix, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-4 Systems Functionality Description, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-5a Operational Activity to Systems Function Traceability Matrix, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 SV-6 Systems Resource Flow Matrix, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 StdV-1, developed on GIG Technical Profiles, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 StdV-2, developed on GIG Technical Profiles, Final v1.0, 23 Apr 2014 Figure 2.11 presents the high-level ACV OV-1. Further information regarding the ACV architecture is available at: https://mcscviper.usmc.mil/sites/SIAT/Architecture/MCAE/MAGTFIA/default.aspx?ProgramID={2AC6E163-6A38-44EE-A735-54788B2DD87D}

Figure 2.11: ACV Operation View (OV-1) Interface Requirements The SPAWAR Digital Integration Facility (DIF) is developing the ACV C3 Sub-System Performance Specification. It will be provided as part of the RFP. The ACV C3 Sub-System Specification will contain all of the physical and electronic interface control information needed to integrate the Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) C3 suite into the ACV.

NSWC Crane will design and develop a marinized Remote Weapon Station (RWS) to be integrated in the ACV. The Sub-System Specification for the weapon system will be provided as part of the RFP. The ACV program will be provided to the selected Contractor(s) the RWS Interface Control Document (ICD) describing all of the physical and electronic interface control information needed to integrate the GFE RWS into the ACV.

Table 2.11 contains the Memoranda of Agreement PM AAA has in place with other organizations for the management of external interfaces.

REQUIRED MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT

PM CREW for the Survivability Suite

1st QTR FY16 for the Survivability Suite Delay integration of GFE into EMD, LRIP & production systems

Table 2.11: Required Memoranda of Agreement Software Development There is no major Software (SW) development effort associated with the ACV procurement. The SW effort for ACV is anticipated to be entering values into the stand-alone systems being integrated into the ACV platform. Examples of this are: (a) the Call Group/Radio Selection table(s) in the Internal Voice Communication system, (b) the Firing Inhibit Zones and Deck Clearance table(s) in the Remote Weapon Station (RWS).

Technical Certifications

Authority Expected Certification Date

Test and Evaluation (T&E) WIPT

Every milestone

Rail - Approved DoD/Department Of Transportation test site Ship - PEO-Ships (Amphibs) and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Technical Warrant Holders (TWHs) (i.e., shock, vibration, etc.)

Maritime Prepositioning Ships - MCSC Transportation and Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (SDDCTEA) by Demonstration Truck - Demonstration with SDDCTEA and MCSC witnessing Prior to MS C

Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3)

Information Assurance (IA) Certification

Prior to MS C

IOC

MS-C

FRP and post IOC

Table 2.21: Certification Requirements Engineering Resources and Management Technical Schedule and Schedule Risk Assessment Technical Schedule The program plan is developed by the ACV Product Manager (PdM) and Assistant Program Manager – Program Management (APM-PM) Division of PM AAA. The program plan identifies the key events and the associated phased activities and timing. The program plan is provided as an attachment in the RFP. The ACV PdM and Assistant Product Manager–Engineering (APdM-E) are responsible for the technical planning and execution of the program plan.

The program plan is further detailed into tasks to develop a top level program schedule. Tasks in the top level schedule are identified using the decomposition technique. The technique of decomposition involves subdividing program events into smaller, more manageable components. Events for each program are identified by decomposing events into a hierarchy of: Program Events (PE); Significant Accomplishments (SA); and Accomplishment Criteria (AC) – also known as the Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The IMP is an event-based, top level plan consisting of a hierarchy of Program Events, with each Event being supported by specific Accomplishments, and each Accomplishment associated with specific Criteria to be satisfied for its completion.

The IMP is further decomposed to a time-based Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) to produce a networked, multi-layered schedule showing all the detailed tasks required to accomplish the work effort contained in the IMP. Through decomposition, the IMS flows directly from the IMP and supplements it with additional levels of detail. It incorporates all of the IMP events, accomplishments, and criteria; to these activities it adds the detailed tasks necessary to support the IMP criteria along with each task’s duration and its relationships with other tasks. This network of integrated tasks, when tied to the start date (e.g., contract award), creates the task and calendar-based schedule that is the IMS.

Once baselined, the Program Tasks that comprise the IMS (and ultimately the IMP) are managed in several ways: Progress Reporting, a Schedule Change Control Process/System, Performance Measurement, Variance Analysis and Corrective Action.

Progress Reporting includes information such as actual start and actual finish dates, and the remaining durations for unfinished schedule activities – also known as schedule statusing.

The Schedule Change Control System defines the procedures by which the project schedule can be changed and includes the paperwork, tracking systems, and approval levels necessary for authorizing changes. Development of revised schedule baseline can only occur as the result of an approved change. The original schedule baseline and schedule model are saved before creating the new schedule baseline to prevent the loss of historical data.

Performance Measurement techniques produce the Baseline Execution Index, Critical Path Length Index, Schedule Variance and, the Schedule Performance Index which are used to assess the magnitude of any project variations that do occur. An important part of schedule control/management is the decision process to determine if the schedule variation requires corrective action/mitigation.

Variance Analysis compares target schedule dates with the actual/forecast start and finish dates to provide useful information for the detection of deviations, and for the implementation of corrective actions in case of delays.

Corrective Action is anything done to bring expected future project schedule performance in line with the approved project schedule baseline. Corrective action often involves expediting, which allows special actions taken to ensure completion of a schedule activity on time or with the least possible delay. Corrective action frequently requires root cause analysis to identify the cause of the variation. The analysis may address schedule activities other than the schedule activity actually causing the deviation.

Schedule Planning Requirements:

The detailed schedules shall contain horizontal and vertical integration, as a minimum, at the work package and planning package level The detailed schedules shall include all tasks/activities, work packages, and planning packages identified in the contract Performance Measurement Baseline (PMB) Every discrete task/activity, work package, and planning package shall be clearly identified and directly related to a control account Work packages and planning packages shall be individually represented and summarize to reconcile with the total budget for that control account If Level of Effort control accounts, work packages, or planning packages are included as tasks in the IMS, they shall be clearly identified as such The detailed tasks/activities, work packages, and planning packages shall be traceable to only one CWBS, IMP, and performing organizational element, as applicable Define all tasks required to execute the Government-approved Contract IMP Define all internal and external schedule dependencies and resources (hours and material dollars) necessary to execute the Contract IMS Define the Program critical path and near-critical path to the closest major acquisition milestone (e.g., MS B), each key system-level technical review (e.g., PDR), and other high risk items as identified by the Government Include Contractor (s) Tasks required to accomplish each IMP Event and relevant sub-contractors scheduled milestones necessary to the achievement of each Contract IMS Event.

The ACV Schedule Management Team includes members from various PM AAA Divisions and is coordinated by the schedule team within the APM-PM Division. The Team reviews schedule tasks within the ACV IMS and updates the schedule as necessary on a monthly basis. The ACV schedule is managed by APM-PM, but the ACV PdM is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the ACV IMS.

Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) The ACV Schedule Management Team will conduct quarterly Probabilistic SRAs with the participation of the Contractor (s) to provide program leadership with an understanding of the potential schedule impacts associated with existing/emerging program risks. These analyses will compute the probability of completing key milestones, events, and tasks/activities by specific dates as well as informing source selection. The ACV Schedule Management Team and the Contractor(s) shall report optimistic, pessimistic, and most likely remaining durations for each task/activity on any of the following paths: critical path to Program Completion, critical path to the next Major Milestone, the next three near critical paths to the next Major Milestone.

A detailed process description of the SRA process is referenced in PM AAA document AAA-PRO-03009 “Schedule Risk Assessment”.

UNCLASSIFIED

ACV-PLN-02003 UNCLASSIFIED

Figure 3.1-1: Draft ACV Technical Schedule

Engineering Resources and Cost/Schedule Reporting Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) The ACV program will be managed by a single, common structure--a product-oriented Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in accordance with MIL-STD-881C. A Program WBS will be established as well as a Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). This structure will be coordinated with the OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), OSD Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC), OSD Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses (PARCA), Naval Center for Cost Analysis (NCCA), PEO LS, and MCSC stakeholders via the Cost Working Integrated Product Team and formalized in the Cost and Software Data Reporting Plan (CSDR) for the ACV program. The WBS will be the common thread to integrate the Statement of Work (SOW), IMP, IMS, Earn Value Management System (EVMS), and Cost Estimating efforts. There will not be a separate product tree structure for ACV. Although the CWBS Index and Dictionary will be developed by the Government Program Manager (PM), the Contractor will further refine lower levels of the CWBS to make the resulting structure program specific and to support effective program management. CWBS definition should be established at a level necessary to identify work progress and enable effective management, regardless of the CWBS level reported in the CSDR Plan for program oversight. The Contractor shall be responsible for periodic updates and maintenance of the CWBS at a level below the required reporting level established by the CSDR plan. Changes to the reporting level CWBS as specified in the CSDR Plan require a contractual modification before incorporation; however, the Contractor has complete flexibility to extend the CWBS below the reporting level to reflect how work is accomplished. The CWBS shall not be influenced by the Contractor’s organizational structure. For reporting purposes, the CWBS is required to be the same for CSDR, Contract Performance Report (CPR), IMP, and IMS related reporting, though reporting levels may be different for each report.

Integrated Master Plan (IMP)/ Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) The IMP/IMS is related to the product-based WBS, by giving a second type of view on the effort, for different audiences or to provide a combination which gives better overall understanding. Linkage between the IMP/IMS and WBS is done by referencing the WBS numbering whenever the PE, SA, or AC involves a deliverable product.

As with the IMS, the ACV Schedule Management Team will review the IMP and update the IMP as necessary. The IMP will be provided to potential Contractors at the time of the RFP release. Potential Contractors will be required to provide a tight linkage across IMP events (as well as WBS, SOW and cost) in their proposals. Potential Contractors do not create an independent IMP, they simply decompose the provided IMP to a time-based IMS to produce a networked, multi-layered schedule showing all the detailed tasks required to accomplish the work effort contained in the provided IMP. If the Contractors have work that requires additional IMP Accomplishment Criteria, they can request a change to the IMP which is subject to Government approval. Contractor(s)-Specific IMS will be incorporated into the ACV Platform IMS through milestones (finish dates) alone – i.e. the entirety of Contractor(s) -specific schedules may not be integrated into the ACV Platform IMS.

Cost Reporting There are two aspects of cost reporting that will be addressed: cost reporting related to the system life cycle and cost reporting relating to contract execution. The program will also be divided into specific portions of effort which will be managed internally by the Government (i.e. non-contracted efforts) and those efforts which will be externally contracted out.

System life cycle cost reporting relates to the cost of each phase of the system development life cycle (Development, Procurement, Military Construction (MILCON), Operations and Support, Disposal) and includes both Government and Contractor efforts. Actual costs incurred and forecasted costs in support of system life cycle reporting will be collected and reported in several ways. First, the Contractor will develop, maintain, and update cost models on Contractor-controlled portions of program phases, including Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E), Procurement, and Operations and Support Costs. This information will be reported to the Government on a semi-annual basis. At least annually, the Contractor will provide a Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) which will incorporate the latest ground rules and assumptions, life cycle management strategies, and objective system designs. Secondly, the Contractor will systematically collect and report cost by MIL-STD-881C Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) element as part of the Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) requirements. Costs are collected and reported in this manner at various program milestones, as determined by OSD as part of the program CSDR plan. The Government will develop cost estimates to address all aspects of the system development life cycle, including Contractor-controlled portions, which will be based on the technical and programmatic baseline established in the Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD). The CARD and corresponding LCCEs will be refined as the underlying assumptions, strategies, and concepts evolve over time. The Government LCCEs will be consolidated into affordability targets for various cost estimating thresholds, including Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC), Average Procurement Unit Cost (APUC), Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC), and Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and reported at least quarterly. Government LCCEs will be prepared at least annually and reported in the Selected Acquisition Report for Congress. Changes to the Government LCCE will be communicated and reported in the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary report to OSD.

Costs related to contract execution will be reported via monthly Integrated Performance Management Reports (IPMRs) in Formats 1-7, monthly cost incurred and invoicing plans, and quarterly via the Contract Funds Status Reports (CFSRs). Format 1 of the IPMR reports cost by MIL-STD-881C WBS element and by element of cost (labor, material, other direct cost, and overhead) on a monthly and cumulative basis. Format 2 of the IPMR reports cost by Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS) element and relates cost incurred to the organizational structure of the Contractor and its major sub-contractors. Format 3 reports any changes related to the PMB established in the Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) for the contract. Format 4 reports staffing by OBS element and offers a look into how the Contractor is assigning personnel to contracted efforts. Format 5 provides variance explanations on a monthly and cumulative basis and explains potential program impacts to cost, schedule, and technical performance. The information reported monthly in Formats 1-5 of the IPMR will be used in conjunction with Format 6 (the monthly Contract IMS) and Format 7 (time-phased historical and forecast cost submission) to manage overall contract execution. The information reported in the monthly cost incurred and invoicing plans and in the quarterly CFSR will be used to manage program cash flows and budgeting aspects of contract execution.

Engineering and Integration Risk Management Risks Management Process The ACV program will conduct risk management in accordance with PM AAA Risk Management Plan (AAA-PLN-01004) and utilize the PM AAA Risk Management Process (AAA-PRO-01005) to execute and manage engineering and integration risks. The risk management plan provides for the recognition, assessment, and control of uncertainties that may result in schedule delays, cost overruns, performance problems, adverse environmental impacts, or other undesired consequences. The Risk Management Plan also identifies the risk authority, roles and responsibilities, and risk management activities. The PM AAA Risk Management Process is shown in Figure 3.31.

Figure 3.31: Risk Management Process The ACV program will require the Contractor to have a risk management program in place at the onset of work. The Contractor will be required to submit Risk Reports to the ACV program in accordance with the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) identified in the SOW. The Contractor will also be required to report on risks at the Program Management Reviews identified in the SOW. In addition, the Contractor risk reports will be an artifact reviewed by the Technical Review Board at each technical review in order to provide an independent assessment to PM AAA on the Contractor’s risk. The ACV PdM will use the Contractor’s risk report along with the programs risk repository in assessing the health of the ACV program.

Technical Risks and Mitigation Planning The Government has identified (as of 10 June 2014) the following risks related to this effort (Figure 3.32). The risks’ details and mitigation actions for each risk are described below.

As of 10 June 2014 Figure 3.32: Technical Risk Cube Risk/Context/Mitigation:

Risk #1: Increased APUC for ACV due to a limited vehicle production run Context: Per-unit cost increase due to limited production run of 204 vehicles.

Mitigation: Aggressive use of should-cost efforts to constrain ACV 1.1 costs. Contract/ Budgeting/ Testing strategies that allows for seamless transition to ACV 1.2 (no production break).

Planned Closure of Risk: Prior to award of the EMD Contract for ACV Risk #2: Increased cost and schedule delays for ACV resulting from applying developmental program testing requirements to NDI technology procurement Context: Cost and Schedule delays Mitigation: Work closely with MDA and Test Community to maximize simultaneous testing events and tailor operational test requirements.

Planned Closure of Risk: Prior to ACV MS B decision Risk #3: Vehicle selected for ACV cannot be upgraded to meet ACV 1.2 requirements Context: Performance (sustainment) associated with mixed fleet.

Mitigation: Growth requirements included in ACV CDD that can be used as Source Selection criteria. Use early ACV 1.1 DT Testing to inform and constrain CDD for ACV 1.2 Planned Closure of Risk: Upon approval of Acquisition Strategy for ACV 1.2 Risk #4: Transferring ACV production from an existing overseas production line to a United States (U.S.) production line without cost and schedule impacts Context: Schedule and Costs associated with developing and qualifying production capability in U.S.

Mitigation: Ensure Contractors selected have U.S. production capability or detailed plan and schedule for developing and qualifying production capability in U.S. Closely monitor Contractor’s execution of plan.

Planned Closure of Risk: Prior to award of the EMD Contract for ACV.

Risk #5: Risk associated with marinizing Common Remote Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) MK 50 Remote Weapon Station (RWS) Context: Schedule and Costs associated with marinizing CROWS MK 50 RWS.

Mitigation: PM AAA continues to work with CROWS PM on defining requirements, design, and testing of marinized system already in production for the United States Navy (USN); retain original ACV weapons system until CROWS demonstrates successful marinization.

Technical Organization Government Program Office Organization

As of 18 August 2014 Figure 3.41: PM AAA Command Level Organization

(as of 28 August 2014) Figure 3.42: ACV1.1 Program Office Organization Program Office Technical Staffing Levels A workload analysis was performed by the ACV PdM and all the functional Divisions based on the program technical schedule. Input from all functional area subject matter experts were consolidated into an integrated staffing level, including the required skill level, required to support the program for the first 3 years of the program. This workload analysis will be reevaluated and updated for the out years after contract award. A competitive contract strategy is being used for the ACV development with two (2) Contractors performing the design, development, build of EMD vehicles, and competitive testing support. The workload analysis will continually be reassessed based on progress during contract performance.

Risks for inadequate staffing levels will be evaluated using the PM AAA risk assessment process. If required, PEO LS and MCSC will allocate additional staff to PM AAA during labor intensive periods such as the conduct of technical reviews or when a unique skill set is required.

Figure 3.43: Program Technical Staffing Contractor(s) Program Office Organization Contractor(s) Program Office Organization information will be incorporated after contract award.

Engineering Team Organization and Staffing Integrated Product Team (IPT) Organization The figure below shows the Government only IPTs that support the ACV program. IPTs/WGs/Boards supporting SE activities report through the SE WIPT. WIPTs report directly to the ACV PdM. This figure will be updated, as needed, as more information becomes available.

(as of 22 August 2014) Figure 3.44: IPT Hierarchy

IPT Details The table below describes the currently established and planned IPTs that will support the ACV program. The IPTs outlined below are Government run, with no direct tie or communication with the Contractors’ IPTs. Communication between the Government and Contractors will be handled through regularly scheduled Program Management Reviews (PMR), Systems Engineering Technical Reviews (SETR), and other review meetings as specified in the ACV1.1 SOW. In addition, each Contractor has a Government Lead assigned that serves as liaison and participates in the Government IPTs.

This section will be updated after contract award to include additional details concerning the products and metrics relevant to each IPT.

Team Name

(by Function or Organization)

Systems Engineering

WIPT

· ACV APdM-E

· ACV PdM

· ACV PSM

· PEO LS Chief Engineer (CHENG)

· Deputy ASN RD&A, CHENG

· PEO Ships and NAVSEA TWHs

· OUSD AT&L DS/SE/AS

· HQMC CD&I

· Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA)

· Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA)

· Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Logistics and Material Readiness

· MCSC SIAT

Roles and Responsibilities:

The mission of the ACV SE WIPT is to ensure adequate technical planning is performed and a comprehensive SEP, Program Protection Plan (PPP), and Reliability, Availability, Maintainability-Cost (RAM-C) are developed for the ACV to successfully meet its milestone requirements.

· Provide a forum for members to exchange information and ensure that SE planning and processes are adequately accomplished.

· Assist PM AAA in developing SE strategies and performing adequate technical planning.

· Propose tailored SE documentation and milestone requirements.

· Review and provide early input to the SEP, PPP, RAM-C and other SE documentation.

· Coordinate and facilitate SEP staffing for concurrence and approval by designated authorities.

· Coordinate SE WIPT activities with the Overarching Integrated Product Team members.

· Resolve and elevate issues in a timely manner.

· Provide advice to the PM AAA.

Scope:

The scope of the ACV SE WIPT is the activities necessary for the conduct of technical planning and execution of technical processes leading to a successful Milestone B Decision.

· Schedule and frequency of meetings:

Monthly until Milestone B.

Products:

Inputs to SEP, PPP, RAM-C

Metrics:

Cost Schedule Performance

APdM-E

· PM AAA Systems Engineering

· PM AAA Marine IPT

· PEO-LS Principal for Safety

Roles and Responsibilities:

The primary goal of the ESOH-AB is to obtain an optimal degree of hazard elimination or mitigation while working within the constraints of time, weight, TOC and operational requirements.

· Evaluate new hazards generated by the ESOH WG; assign initial Risk Assessment Codes, keep abreast of mitigation progress to ensure issues don’t become stagnant; determine if risks need elevation to a higher level for resolution; and review risk for closure acceptability.

· Serve as ESOH focal point for system level issues. Provide an ESOH forum of technical experts to integrate the ESOH perspective into engineering trade studies supporting decisions related to ESOH issues.

· Provide metrics to keep PM AAA informed about current ESOH risks to include pending or newly generated hazard reports, percent or number of hazards by category and a prioritized list of mitigations.

· Provide documentation to support risk acceptance. Ensure the risk is clearly identified and quantified when presented to appropriate authority for risk acceptance.

· Assure the reporting and dissemination of personnel risk, vehicle damage, and environmental impacts are made to apprise management and affected personnel.

· Aid in resolving technical ESOH differences during; trade studies, supporting maintenance, and procurement actions.

· Assure ESOH areas are considered in the assessment of Life Cycle Cost, specifically the potential costs avoided as a result of accident, injuries, illness, lost time, Occupational Health claims and environmental clean-up/disposal.

Support mishap investigations, in accordance with PM AAA Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Minor Ground Mishap Reporting.

Schedule and frequency of meetings:

· Monthly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

Risk assessments

Metrics:

Pending/newly generated hazard reports Hazards by category Prioritized list of mitigations

· RAM Engineer

· Systems Engineer

· ACV APdM-E

· T&E Lead

· Logistics PSM

Roles and Responsibilities:

· The RAM IPT will provide and manage a forum for communicating across the entire PM AAA internal and external communities (CD&I, MCOTEA, and PEO LS). Activities include but are not limited to: Requirements Development, RAM best practices, test planning, design for reliability, reliability growth planning and tracking, RAM technical information, and analyses for managing the development of integrated amphibious platforms.

Schedule and frequency of meetings:

Monthly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

RAM Requirements RAM forecasts

Metrics:

Mean Time Between Operational Mission Failure Mean Time Between Failure Mean Time To Repair

· ACV C2 Lead

· SE Rep

· Logistics Rep

· T&E Rep

· Requirements IPT Lead

· SPAWAR Digital Integration Facility (DIF)

· DIF Lead

· DIF Program Manager

· DIF Lead Engineer

· DIF Design Lead

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· Oversee design of GFE C2 System

· Create and provide to the Prime Contractors accurate ICDs for the GFE C2 System

· Determine the work effort for the upcoming fiscal year and develop, review and approve the SOW for SSC-LANT.

· Review progress against tasks delineated in the SOW.

· Resolve Issues identified by established working groups

· Ensure that designs are robust, producible and fully integrated

· Meet Average Unit Cost and Life Cycle Cost targets

· Meet all key performance requirements

· Meet all program objectives

· Manage to an agreed upon set of program metrics

· Identify and resolve cross product and/or process issues

· Identify, resolve, and mitigate risks Schedule and frequency of meetings:

Monthly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

C2 requirements C2 ICDs

Metrics:

C2 Cost C2 Schedule C2 Performance

Weapon Station IPT

· Safety Rep

· Human Factors Rep

· SE Rep

· Logistics Rep

· T&E Rep

· Requirements IPT Lead

· NSWC Crane Rep

· US Army PM Crew Served Weapons Rep

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· Oversee design of GFE RWS System

· Create and provide to the Prime Contractors accurate ICDs for the GFE RWS System

· Resolve Issues identified by established working groups

· Meet Average Unit Cost and Life Cycle Cost targets

· Meet all key performance requirements

· Meet all program objectives

· Manage to an agreed upon set of program metrics

· Identify and resolve cross product and/or process issues

· Identify, resolve, and mitigate risks Schedule and frequency of meetings:

Monthly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

RWS requirements RWS ICDs

Metrics:

RWS Cost RWS Schedule RWS Performance

T&E WIPT

PM AAA or designee (PM AAA Lead Dev Test)

· Program Office:

· PM AAA T&E Dev Test Lead

· PM AAA T&E

· APdM-E

· ACV PdM

· PEO LS

· MCOTEA

· Marine Corps Combat Development Command

· HQMC Plans, Policies, and Operations (PP&O)

· ASN RD&A

· OUSD AT&L/DS/SE

· Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E)

· DASD for Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· The mission of the T&E WIPT is to ensure the successful integration of test and evaluation for the ACV Program by optimizing the use of appropriate T&E expertise and methodologies, instrumentation, facilities, simulations, models, and other resources as appropriate. The T&E WIPT will provide a forum to promote open communications between all of the organizations involved in test and evaluation of the ACV. The T&E WIPT will coordinate efforts, exchange information and ideas, identify issues and concerns, and facilitate the decision making process to ensure the success of the ACV throughout the acquisition process, within the defined cost, schedule, and performance boundaries set forth by the Acquisition IPT.

· Coordinate TEMP updates and facilitate staffing for concurrence and approval by designated authorities.

· Provide a forum for members to ensure that T&E planning, execution, and reporting are directed toward a common goal.

· Identify and resolve problems/issues associated with T&E for the ACV.

· Establish clear mechanisms and forum for the communication of status and issues.

· Timely completion of assigned action items.

Schedule and frequency of meetings:

Quarterly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

TEMP

Metrics:

Test Schedule Test Cost Test Vehicle Availability

· ACV APdM-E

· Requirements Engineers

· Requirements Subject Matter Experts

· Logistics PSM

· DOORS Database managers

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· The ACV Requirements IPT will use several phases to develop and refine the ACV Performance Spec and associated documents.

· Coordinate with CD&I on updates to the ACV CDD.

· Reduce requirements uncertainty and risk.

· Define best practices for requirements management and analysis

· Schedule and frequency of meetings:

· As determined by the Chairperson Products:

ACV System Performance Specification

· ACV APdM-E

· PM AAA Vehicle Electrical Systems Lead

· Armament PM

· Government Lead for Contractor A

· Government Lead for Contractor B

· Logistics PSM

· Contractor A Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

· Contractor B COR

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· Oversee integration of all GFE onto Contractor vehicles

· Manage interdependencies of Contractor A, Contractor B, C2 GFE , and RWS GFE delivery and integration schedules

· Resolve cross product and/or process issues

· Identify, resolve, and mitigate risks

· Schedule and frequency of meetings:

· Monthly or as determined by the Chairperson Products:

Integration of all GFE onto Contractor A and Contractor B vehicles

Metrics:

GFE Integration Schedule GFE Integration Cost GFE Integration Performance

· ACV APdM

· Functional Areas: Logistics, T&E, SE

· OSD

· ASN (RD&A)

· PEO LS

· Roles and Responsibilities:

· Review Life Cycle Support Plan(LCSP) and other logistics documentation as required Schedule and frequency of meetings:

As determined by the Chairperson Products:

LCSP