SSAT Industry Day

1
NAVAIR Public Release Tracking Number
08-976 Distribution Statement A Approved for
Public Release Distribution is Unlimited
2
Agenda

• Ground rules / Admin
• Program overview
• Procurement strategy overview
• Source selection overview
• Cost / Price overview
• Technical expectations
• Logistics Support Expectations
• Wrap-up, questions and answers

3
Ground Rules

• Primary Purpose - Ensure clear understanding of
  the planned RFP
• All attendees must sign-in
• Please silence cell phones and pagers
• No recording
• No classified information will be shared at this
  time
• This is an informational briefing only
• No information exchanged at this briefing or
  during follow-on one-on-one meetings will be
  considered Bid and Proposal Information or
  Source Selection Sensitive Information
• Please hold questions to the end of each briefing
  section
• Feel free to submit questions in writing on
  question submittal forms provided at the sign-in
  table
• Presentation, questions responses, and a list
  of attendees will be posted on the NAVAIR
  Contracts website
• http//www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_s
  olicitations

4
Questions
After Industry Day and follow on one-on-one
meetings, questions should be submitted to Mr.
Frank Fisher, NAVAIR Contract Specialist, at the
following e-mail address Francis.Fisher_at_navy.mil
5
Disclaimer

• The remarks today of Government officials
  involved in the Subsonic Aerial Target
  procurement should not be considered a guarantee
  of the Governments course of action in
  proceeding with the program. The information
  shared today reflects current Government
  intentions and is subject to change. The formal
  solicitation is the only document that should be
  relied upon in determining the Governments
  requirements.

6

• SSAT Program Overview
• Ray Gagnon
• Deputy Program Manager
• SSAT Development

7
SSAT Requirements Acquisition Approach

• Requirements
• ONI threat assessment update performed
• Weapons Systems Sensitivity Study completed
• Determined that existing Navy subsonic targets
  could not be modified to achieve needed
  performance attributes
• Navy requirements sponsor leading Capabilities
  Development Document (CDD) requirements working
  group
• CDD in formal staffing
• Planning for a final CDD to be signed in Nov 08
• Acquisition Approach
• Strategy is to have industry modify an existing
  subsonic target to achieve Navy SSAT requirements
• Estimating an 24-30 month late stage System
  Development Demonstration (SDD) effort
• RFI released to gain insight into industry
  perspective
• SDD time needed, cost ROM technical drivers
• SDD contract planned to include priced production
  (two) contractor logistics support options on
  development contract

8
SSAT What does the Navy want?

• An affordable and reliable aerial target that
  meets Navy high fidelity subsonic target
  requirements
• To be demonstrated during System Development
  Demonstration (SDD)
• Affordable
• Life cycle cost performance rather than
  development cost
• Designed to allow for potential block upgrades
• Examples
• Integration of Navy qualified RATOs (dual RATO
  configuration)
• Ability to integrate onto tactical and cargo type
  aircraft as an external store
• Target must have air launch capability designed
  in during SDD

9
SDD Limitations

• Limited modifications to an existing production
  target system
• All proposed technologies must be TRL 7 to meet
  the requirements of the SOW
• Use of existing test data, i.e. qualification,
  ground, flight, verification by analysis is
  encouraged, unless the results are invalidated by
  modifications to the system/subsystem
• Mandatory interface to existing Navy systems
• SNTC
• Specific payloads
• Retrieval systems
• SDD schedule funds
• Schedule
• Estimating 24-30 month SDD
• Funding
• Program Office estimating a potential industry
  partner can successfully complete SDD for
  15-25M (including fee)
• During pre-solicitation phase, open to any/all
  suggestions for reducing developmental costs
  while achieving objectives

10
SSAT Notional SDD Schedule

• Assumptions
• Existing target systems requiring moderate
  modification to meet Navy requirements.
• All subsystems proposed are TRL 7 or higher
• Scope cost of modifications well understood by
  bidder, only time and funds required to execute
  (near CDR-ready designs at contract award)
• Modification of software code does not require
  architecture change
• Bidder has flexibility in all aspects of
  schedule, except six months required for DT-II
  and all SETR required meetings must be
  accomplished
• Combine/Tailor SETR meetings to meet needs of
  program

11
Summary

• The SSAT development demonstration effort will
  yield a production ready target system that will
  be capable of satisfying major weapon systems
  Test Evaluation and advanced Fleet training
  requirements at an affordable production and
  operational cost
• Emphasis on procuring a robust air vehicle
  capable of meeting current requirements
• Focus on life cycle cost/performance rather than
  development cost/schedule
• Two Production/CLS options awardable following
  successful SDD
• Anticipate follow on annual sole source
  production/CLS contracts to the SDD prime
  contractor

12

• Questions?

13

• Procurement Strategy Overview
• Vicki Fuhrman
• Procuring Contract Officer
• Frank Fisher
• Contract Specialist

14
SSAT Key Events
Planning based on CDD approval in Nov 08
15
NAVAIR Solicitation Website

• Contract-related information is posted to this
  website
• http//www.navair.navy.mil/doing_business/open_s
  olicitations/
• (Click on N00019-09-R-0206)
• Including, but not limited to
• Draft RFP, including all contract sections (A
  through J), exhibits, and attachments
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Draft RFP QA

16
Contract Structure

• Contract Types
• SDD Base contract CPIF
• Production options (2) FFP
• Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) options
  (2) CPFF
• Contract Length
• SDD base contract 2-3 years, RDT E annual
  funding
• 2 production/CLS option years, WPN funding
• Future Contracts
• FFP Production CLS
• Spares-provision item under production contract
• Depot Level Maintenance

17
Priced Contract Line Items
18
Government Furnished Property

• No Government Inventory of existing Targets (i.e.
  BQM-74E/BQM-34S available as GFP
• Government Owned Support Equipment may be
  available for a limited period of time for
  integration during SDD, offeror must propose

19

• Questions?

20

• Source Selection Overview
• Jim Stanford
• AIR-4.10E
• Source Selection Office

21
Source Selection Outline

• Objectives
• Grading/definitions
• Evaluation criteria overview
• Proposal instructions
• Guidelines
• Past performance
• Summary

22
Source Selection Objectives

• Choose the contractor who provides the best value
  to the Navy, all factors considered
• Award the contract without protest

23
Evaluation Grading

• We use a Qualitative and NOT a Quantitative
  system
• Proposal Rating (Technical)
• Outstanding, Highly Satisfactory, Satisfactory,
  Marginal, Unsatisfactory
• Proposal Risk (Technical)
• Low, Medium, High
• Performance Risk (Past Performance and
  Experience)
• Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, Very High, Unknown
  (Past Performance Only)

24
Technical - Proposal Rating Definitions -
Proposal significantly exceeds requirements in a
way that benefits the Government or meets
requirements and contains at least one
exceptional enhancing feature that benefits the
Government. Any weakness is minor.
Outstanding
Proposal exceeds requirements in a way that
benefits the Government or meets requirements and
contains enhancing features that benefit the
Government. Any weakness is minor.
Highly Sat.
Satisfactory
Proposal meets requirements. Any weaknesses are
minor and will have little or no impact on
contract performance.
Proposal contains weaknesses or minor
deficiencies that could have some impact if
accepted.
Marginal
Unsatisfactory
Proposal does not comply substantially with
requirements.
25
Technical - Proposal Risk Definitions -
Has little or no potential to cause disruption of
schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of
performance. Normal contractor effort will
probably be able to overcome difficulties.
Low
Can potentially cause some disruption of
schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of
performance. However, special contractor
emphasis will probably be able to overcome
difficulties.
Likely to cause significant serious disruption of
schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of
performance even with special contractor emphasis.
High
26
Performance Risk for Past Performance and
Experience - Risk Definitions -
Based on the offeror's experience or past
performance, essentially no doubt exists that the
offeror will successfully perform the required
effort
Based on the offeror's experience or past
performance, little doubt exists that the offeror
will successfully perform the required effort.
Low (L)
Based on the offeror's experience or past
performance, some doubt exists that the offeror
will successfully perform the required effort.
Based on the offeror's experience or past
performance, substantial doubt exists that the
offeror will successfully perform the required
effort.
High (H)
Based on the offeror's experience or past
performance, extreme doubt exists that the
offeror will successfully perform the required
effort.
No past performance record identifiable. This
applies only to Past Performance
27
Evaluation Criteria Reminders

• Best Value
• Use of Non-Proposal Information
• Integrated Evaluation
• Un-Satisfactory Proposal Rating and/or High
  Proposal Risk may result in the entire proposal
  being found unacceptable and eliminated from the
  competition

28
Disclaimer

• The following slide is for information only and
  is an example of the criteria that has been used
  on previous system-type competitions at NAVAIR
• The exact factors/sub-factors and associated
  criteria language will be approved by the SSA and
  released in the final RFP. Schedule permitting,
  factors/sub-factors and associated criteria
  language to be released prior to the final RFP

29
RFP M Evaluation Factors - Example -
TECHNICAL (Rating Proposal
Risk)
COST ()
Contract Cost
Production Life Cycle Cost 1
FOR INFORMATION ONLY
1 Typically used when there are LRIP and/or
Production follow-up contracts This slide is for
information only and is an example of the
criteria that has been used on previous
system-type competitions at NAVAIR.
30
Integrated Evaluation as related to Schedule and
Cost
Design Approach risks and other Technical risks -
compared to risk mitigation plans in the Risk
Management Plan and the IMS
Schedule Assessment - Unaccounted or
inadequately addressed Technical risks (in
addition to other issues impacting schedule) are
translated to Schedule impact
Cost Realism - Schedule impact (in addition to
other issues impacting Cost) are accounted for in
the Governments estimate of the Most Probable
Cost
31
Proposal Preparation Guidance

• Demonstrate the offeror has a thorough
  understanding of requirements and inherent risks
  and is able to devote resources to meet the
  requirements and has a valid and practical
  solution for all requirements
• Support your statements with facts, analysis and
  substantiating data to illustrate that your
  approach is realistic and reasonable
• Provide clear and concise descriptions /
  justifications.
• Understanding the evaluation criteria will help
  you know where to place emphasis in your proposal

32
Proposal Preparation Guidance (contd)

• Typical Proposal Shortfalls
• Not being responsive to RFP instructions
• Information not provided as requested
• Information provided does not support claims
• Deviation requests
• H-Clauses
• Spec (except where tailoring is permitted)
• Deficiencies - may preclude award
• Information provided does not support claims of
  compliance
• Proposal is non-compliant to the requirements

33
Proposal Preparation Considerations

• Evaluation Criteria, Proposal Instructions, and
  proposal should track
• Can an evaluator quickly find what he/she needs?
• Is it clear?
• Is it well organized?
• Drawings and diagrams complement narrative, but
  don't replace it
• Substantiate, do not simply make claims
• Making statements such as "we understand, we are
  committed, we are capable, our experience
  ensures, we comply
• Show how experience is applied, results and
  benefits, prove the level of capability, and
  provide the basis and substantiating data
• Give us a reason to believe you

34
Proposal Instruction Outline- Example -

• Volume I Executive Summary
• Volume II Technical
• Book 1 Technical Approach
• Book 2 Program and Schedule
• Volume III Past Performance
• Volume IV Experience
• Volume V Cost/Price
• Volume VI Exceptions, Deviations
• Volume VII Streamlining

35
Past PerformanceEvaluation Concept

• How did offeror perform on current or past
  contracts?
• Review Offerors Past Record, e.g., CPARS
• Determine Relevancy / Recency
• Assess each Contact Referenced
• Roll up each reference assessment into an overall
  Offeror Assessment

• Based on offerors assessment (Look Back), how do
  we think they will perform on the SSAT program?
• Final product is the Past Performance Risk
  Assessment

36
Past PerformanceEvaluation Concept

• Historical performance via CPARS, questionnaires
• Relevancy
• Source selection team will assess all relevant
  contracts, not only those identified by offerors
• Bid-referenced contracts not de facto relevant
• What makes a previous contract relevant?
• similar tasks, scope, systems
• Similar life-cycle stage development/production/
  sustainment
• For large conglomerate multi-division offerors,
  same business unit/product sector
• Recency
• No hard established time period
• Looking for discontinuities/changes in
  management, workforce, or facilities which may
  impact ability to predict future performance
• Purchase of business unit/realignment under
  different sector/change in key management
  personnel
• Workforce turnover/production break/layoffs
• Relocation of design function/production
  line/depot

37
Summary

• Looking for the best value package
• Objective is to make the process mutually
  beneficial
• You provide the best possible proposal
• We have better proposals to choose from

38

• Questions?

39

• Cost/Price Overview
• Carol Meade
• AIR-4.2
• Cost Team Lead

40
Outline

• Proposal instructions overview Cost / Price
• Definitions
• Realism
• Reasonableness
• Completeness
• Discussion
• Cost summaries
• Traceability
• Detailed substantiation
• Cost-to-sell equations
• How to Avoid Common short-falls
• Summary

41
Draft Proposal Instructions Overview- Example -

• Cost / Price Proposal instructions are structured
  to facilitate the evaluation by organizing the
  offeror's information
• Section 1
• Tab 1 - Summary of Estimating Methodology
• Tab 2 - Programmatic Information
• Tab 3 - Cost Summaries
• Tab 4 - Labor
• Tab 5 - Material
• Tab 6 - Other Direct Charges
• Tab 7 - Profit or Fee
• Section 2
• Tab 1 - Indirect Rates
• Tab 2 - Direct Rates
• Tab 3 - Cost-to-sell equations
• Tab 4 - Escalation

42
Definitions

• Realism - A quantitative or qualitative measure
  of costs in relation to the statement of work and
  the risk inherent in the project. A quantitative
  measure relates contractor proposed costs to a
  Government independent estimate. A qualitative
  measure is based on an analyst's judgment of all
  costs
• Reasonableness - The appropriateness of the
  contractor's assumptions, both technical and
  programmatic, and methods of handling current or
  expected economic conditions as these relate to
  the cost methodology and use of historical costs.
  Assumptions include system definitions, work
  statements, and schedules
• Completeness - The adequacy of the cost proposal
  in relation to the statement of work/objective -
  considering whether all costs are included or
  accounted for. All SOW requirements must be
  included

43
Cost Summaries

• Provides clear set of requirements
• Reduces government's interpretation of offeror's
  proposals
• Description of the work to be performed
• Standardizes and simplifies the government's
  evaluation process
• Breakdown by CWBS element
• Identify functional costs using offerors
  categories (engineering, tooling, manufacturing,
  quality control, etc.)
• Distinction between recurring and non-recurring
  effort
• Bill of materials
• GFE
• Other Direct Costs

44
Traceability Matrix

• CLIN / CWBS / SOW Matrix
• Imperative that the estimate be easily traceable
  from the lowest level
• Traceability between labor and material in cost
  summaries and detailed sections
• Traceability between subcontractor and offeror
  information

45
Detailed Substantiation

• Offeror demonstrates thorough understanding of
  requirements and inherent risks and is able to
  devote resources to meet the requirements and has
  a valid and practical solution for all
  requirements
• Provides information about Offerors capability /
  history
• Limits the data Offeror must compile to prepare
  credible offer
• Provide relevant historical data
• Thoroughly describe methodologies
• The ultimate goal
• Ensures Governments understanding of the
  Offerors proposal
• The Governments independent estimate Proposed
  Cost

46
Detailed Substantiation (contd)

• Standard hours with historical basis
• Provide Labor Category definitions
• Catalog prices
• Vendor quotes
• Historical Labor / Overhead costs
• Well reasoned and supported engineering judgment

47
Cost-to-Sell Equations

• Provide the methodology used to convert cost data
  into sell price
• Includes
• Sequence in which indirect rates, profit, etc.
  are applied and the base against which each
  indirect rate is applied
• Examples of conversion of cost into price

48
Avoid Common Shortfalls

• Identify hardware / software requirements
• Provide historical data
• Provide relevance of historical (accounting) data
  / printouts
• Adequately define work
• Do not assume cost summaries are sufficient
  substantiation
• Provide DCAA / DCMA negotiated rates / rate
  agreements
• Provide a trace between calendar year rates and
  rates used in the proposal
• Provide Cost-to-Sell Equations

49
Summary

• Help the evaluators, do not keep them guessing or
  searching
• Provide historical data - not just a reference
• Ensure traceability throughout the proposal
• Ensure Technical and Cost proposals are
  consistent
• Provide only data and information that is
  relevant in a concise, direct manner

Cost credibility rests with the offeror Please
substantiate the estimate!
50

• Questions?

51

• Technical Expectations
• Arthur Nakas
• Class Desk Engineer / APMSE
• AIR-4.1.1.6

52
Engineering Topics

• CONOPS
• Performance Specification
• Key Performance Parameters
• Key System Attributes
• Additional Attributes
• Infrastructure
• Technology Readiness
• SETR process
• Integrated design and test team
• Airworthiness
• Modular Open System Approach

53
Current Concept of Operations
Airborne Relay For OTH
LEGEND Manual Flight/Manual Updates Autonomous
Waypoint Navigation
Range Operations Center (ROC)
C.P.A. (3 nmi radius)
Helicopter Recovery Limit (40 nmi)
Repeat Attack
LACE
Ground Control Station (GCS)
LAC
54
Performance Specification Status

• Document available as part of draft RFP
• Current Draft Performance Specification is
  PMA208-08001
• NAVAIR competency (SME) and Industry comments are
  expected
• Final Spec will be ready as part of formal RFP
• Candid feedback encouraged to identify
  requirements that are cost / schedule / technical
  drivers or concerns
• Welcome comments on Performance Specification,
  CSOW, and CDRLs

55
SSAT Key Performance Parameters
Notes 1. Programmable weaves are specified at
10.0 ft initiation, for 90 seconds duration, in
WMO Sea State 3 conditions and can be programmed
throughout the range 1.0 6.0 g (Threshold) and
1.0 8.0 g (Objective). 2. See paragraph 6.1.1.2
of the SSAT Performance Specification for AM
definition.
If KPP Thresholds are not met, then it will be a
deficiency.
Draft based on Draft CDD
56
SSAT Key System Attributes
Notes 1. See paragraph 6.1.12 of the SSAT
Performance Specification for RM definition. 2.
RM calculation excludes Government Furnished
Equipment (GFE). 3. The SSAT air vehicle shall be
at the most fuel efficient speed at 20 thousand
feet (Kft) to meet the 300 nmi range and at 0.90
M at 50 ft (absolute) to meet the 150 nmi range
capability. 4. Programmable to achieve the full
selectable range from 1.0 to 6.0 g and for
constant weave across the full range from 3.0
seconds (sec) to 7.0 sec. 5. Programmable to
achieve the full selectable range from 1.0 to 8.0
g and for constant AND random weaves across the
full range from 3.0 seconds (sec) to 7.0 sec.
Draft based on Draft CDD
57
SSAT Additional Attributes

• Additional Attributes (AAs) are
• Important to enhance the utility of the vehicle
  as a target to the user (Fleet Ops and Test
  Evaluation)
• If a proposed vehicle does not have a capability
  for any one of the AAs, then it will be
  considered a weakness unless justifiable
  rationale is provided
• If a significant number of AA thresholds are not
  met, then it will be considered a significant
  weakness
• Some AAs have threshold and objective values

DRAFT ONLY - based on Draft CDD
58
Infrastructure

• SSAT System interfaces shall be compatible with
  the following Navy Range infrastructures
• Naval Western Test Range Complex (NWTRC), Point
  Mugu CA
• East Coast Operating Site (ECOS), Dam Neck VA
• Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Barking
  Sands HI
• Commander Fleet Activity Okinawa CFAO (Open
  Ocean)
• Winning Contractor will have access to equipment

Point Mugu launch site
59
Technology Readiness Assessment What is it?

• Regulatory (DOD 5000) Statute Requirement
  (Title 10)
• Systematic metrics based process used to assess
  the maturity of Critical Technology Elements
  (CTEs)
• Utilizes Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as
  a CTE maturity metric
• TRA helps identify areas for program risk
  management, but is not a Risk Assessment
• TRA assesses the maturity of the technology
  maturity of the elements that form the basis of
  the design foundation for which threshold
  operational performance compliance is dependent
• TRA addresses both hardware software
• Assessment event draws a line in the sand for
  determining technology maturity

No credit for future accomplishments when
assigning TRLs
60
TRA in the SETR Timeline
61
New Public Law
SEC. 801. REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION
BEFORE MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
MAY PROCEED TO MILESTONE B. (a) CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT.Chapter 139 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting
after section 2366 the following new section
2366a. Major defense acquisition programs
certification required before Milestone B or
Key Decision Point B approval (a)
CERTIFICATION.A major defense acquisition program
may not receive Milestone B approval, or
Key Decision Point B approval in the case of a
space program, until the milestone decision
authority certifies that (1) the technology in
the program has been demonstrated in a relevant
environment

• HR 1815 became Public Law 109-163 as part of the
  National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006
• Public Law 109-163 contains Section 801

Translation is Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6
62
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 7Desired for
SDD
 
Prototype near, or at, planned operational
system. Represents a major step up from TRL 6,
requiring demonstration of an actual system
prototype in an operational environment such as
an aircraft, vehicle, or space. Examples include
testing the prototype in a test bed aircraft.

63
Critical Technology Elements (CTEs)

• The term Critical Technology has become a
  universal phrase with many different connotations
  and definitions
• Mission Critical Technology List
• Critical Protection Items
• Important technologies for Mission Success
• In the context of technology readiness the
  Critical Technology translation is unique
• To avoid confusion and to uniquely associate the
  TRA application apart from the others the
  Critical Technology Element (CTE) terminology was
  born
• CTE terminology is uniquely associated with the
  TRA process
• Critical Technology Elements If a system being
  acquired depends on specific technologies to meet
  system operational requirements in development,
  production, and operation and if the technology
  or its application is either new or novel

64
Basic Criteria for Determining CTEs

• Is the technology new or novel? If yes then CTE
• A new product does not necessarily dictate a new
  technology
• If yes to any of the following additional
  questions then further discussion required to
  determine significance before CTE determination
• Has the technology been modified?
• Has the technology been repackaged such that a
  new and more stressful relevant environment is
  realized?
• Is the technology expected to operate in an
  environment and/or achieve a performance
  expectation beyond its original design intention
  or demonstrated capability?
• Do not confuse CTEs with standard engineering
  development activity

Is the physics or engineering understood in the
industry and / or is it scaleable from similar
proven technology products?
65
TRL Characteristics (Snapshot)
TRL 9 ---- TRL 8 ---- TRL 7 ---- TRL 6 ---- TRL
5 ---- TRL 4 ---- TRL 3 ---- TRL 2 ---- TRL 1

• System Completed
• Flt / Mission Qual
• System/Subsystem
• Development
• Tech Demo
• Tech Development
• Research to Prove Feasibility
• Basic Tech Research

System Validated on Representative A/C Via OT
System Validated on Representative A/C Via DT
System Demo Dynamic OP Flight Environ
. Sys/Subsys Demo Relevant Lab Environ
Component/Breadboard Relevant Environ
. Component/Breadboard Lab Environ
. Analytical /Experimental Proof-of-Concept
. Technology Concept Basic
Principles
TRL 2 ---- TRL 1
66
Hardware TRLs
 

MS B Target
MS C Target
67
Software TRLs
MS B Target
MS C Target
68
Technology Readiness Level (TRL)
 

• Key takeaway

Proposals that include CTEs should target TRL 7!
69
System Engineering Technical Review (SETR)
Process

• System Engineering Technical Review Process will
  be a critical part of the PMA-208 technical and
  risk management strategies
• This is not your typical program so the process
  is streamlined but thorough
• Technical reviews will be event driven
• SETR process will follow NAVAIRINST 4355.19D

70
SSAT Notional SDD Schedule
With maturity comes compression
71
System Engineering Technical Reviews

• Key events in the SETR process as illustrated
  on the notional schedule
• Combined SRR with IBR very soon after contract
  award
• Ensure that all system requirements are accounted
  for / flowed properly
• Combined SFR/SSR/PDR soon after contract award
• Winning bidder is expected to deliver a system at
  award with a firm allocated baseline and mature
  software
• Combined TRR/FRR prior to DTI events
• To assess readiness for ground and initial flight
  tests
• Delta FRR prior to DTII events
• Combined CDR/IRR
• To assess the product baseline arrived at during
  the initial DT evolutions (assuming that system
  tweaks may be necessary)
• Software changes, if required, should now be
  implemented and the integrated system should be
  functional
• System Verification Review (SVR) / Production
  Readiness Review (PRR)
• SVR / PRR prior to production

72
Integrated Design and Test Team

• Lower government CDRL costs
• Reduce data package RFIs and resubmissions
• Diminish flight clearance concerns
• Heighten government team understanding of the
  design
• Increase support of the SETR process
• Augment program efficiency and probability of
  success

Goal Sufficient number of flight test events
that demonstrate high material reliability and
availability
73
Airworthiness

• Navy SSAT Demonstration System will require
  NAVAIR Flight Clearances
• Governing Documents
• NAVAIR Instruction 13034.1C
• MIL-HDBK-516

74
Modular Open System Approach(MOSA)

• DoDD 5000.1 states that, Acquisition programs
  shall be managed through the application of a
  systems engineering approach that optimizes total
  system performance and minimizes total ownership
  costs. A modular, open-systems approach shall be
  employed, where feasible.
• We are not expecting Contractors to modify their
  existing architectures to employ Modular Open
  Systems Design (MOSA) concepts
• For new and modified subsystems MOSA should be
  considered to permit future growth and technology
  insertion.

75
Summary

• Specification development nearing completion
• Candid feedback encouraged to identify
  requirements that are cost / schedule / technical
  drivers or concerns
• Offerors will need to provide a Technology
  Readiness Self-Assessment as part of the proposal
• Integrated design and test teams
• Navy SSAT Demonstration System will require
  NAVAIR Flight Clearances
• Process defined by MIL-HDBK-516 and NAVAIRINST
  13034.1C

76

• Questions?

77
Logistics ExpectationsCésar AfanadorAPMLAIR-66
3200E
78
Logistics Topics
 

• Logistics Strategy
• Key Performance Parameter (KPP)
• Key System Attributes (KSA)
• System Development Demonstration (SDD) Key
  Events
• Production Deployment Key Events
• Failure Analysis Board (FAB)
• Summary

79
Logistics Strategy
 

• NAVY Maintenance Levels
• O Level Maintenance which is the
  responsibility of, and performed by, a using
  organization on its assigned equipment. Consist
  of inspecting, servicing, lubricating, adjusting,
  and replacing parts, minor assemblies, and
  subassemblies.
• I Level Maintenance which is the
  responsibility of, and performed by, designated
  maintenance activities for direct support of
  using organizations. Consist of calibration,
  repair or replacement of damaged or unserviceable
  parts, components, or assemblies.
• D Level- Maintenance done on material requiring
  major rework or a complete rebuilt of parts,
  assemblies, subassemblies, and end items,
  including manufacture, modification, testing, and
  reclamation of parts as required. Supports lower
  levels of maintenance, and provides stocks of
  serviceable equipment by using more extensive
  facilities for repair not available at lower
  levels.

SSAT O to D
80
Logistics Strategy
 

• O Level to Depot
• Operating Site performs O level
• Prefer No I level (when cost effective)
• OEM performs Depot Level
• Main Operating Sites
• Contractor Support Services (CSS)
• Naval Western Test Range Complex (NWTRC), Point
  Mugu CA (used throughout SDD phase)
• East Coast Operating Site (ECOS), Dam Neck VA
• Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Barking
  Sands HI
• Uniformed Military
• Commander, Fleet Activity, Okinawa (CFAO),
  Okinawa Japan
• Operations and Maintenance
• Interface with existing Facilities

SSAT O to OEM
81
SDD Logistics Strategy
 

• Contractor Logistics Support (OEM)
• Configuration Management Program
• Data Management (Tech Manuals, Engineering
  Drawings, etc.)
• All SSAT generated data shall be available to
  designated Government CSS in the contractors
  Integrated Digital Environment (IDE)
• Supply Support Program based on Contractor
  Supportability Analysis (Spares, Repair of
  Repairable, etc.)
• Training Program (Operators Maintainers)
• PSE
• Mission Installation Kits
• Contractor Engineering Technical Support (CETS)

82
SSAT Key Performance Parameters
Notes 1. Programmable weaves are specified at
10.0 ft initiation, for 90 seconds duration, in
WMO Sea State 3 conditions and can be programmed
throughout the range 1.0 6.0 g (Threshold) and
1.0 8.0 g (Objective). 2. See paragraph 6.1.1.2
of the SSAT Performance Specification for AM
definition.
If KPP Thresholds are not met, then it will be a
deficiency.
Draft based on Draft CDD
83
SSAT Key System Attributes
Notes 1. See paragraph 6.1.12 of the SSAT
Performance Specification for RM definition. 2.
RM calculation excludes Government Furnished
Equipment (GFE). 3. The SSAT air vehicle shall be
at the most fuel efficient speed at 20 thousand
feet (Kft) to meet the 300 nmi range (Threshold)
and at 0.90 M at 50 ft (absolute) to meet the 150
nmi range (Objective) capability. 4. Programmable
to achieve the full selectable range from 1.0 to
6.0 g (Threshold) and for constant weave across
the full range from 3.0 seconds (sec) to 7.0
sec. 5. Programmable to achieve the full
selectable range from 1.0 to 8.0 g (Objective)
and for constant AND random weaves across the
full range from 3.0 seconds (sec) to 7.0 sec.
Draft based on Draft CDD
84
SDD Logistics Key Events
 

• PDR Full disclosure of SSAT Supportability
  Strategy, including existing Physical Baseline,
  identify CSE requirements, etc.
• CDR - Updated Supportability Strategy
• TE (DT II) Contractor Logistics Support
• Requirements Verification Reliability,
  Maintainability and Availability
• ILA Source Data required for a successful SSAT
  logistics Assessment and Certification prior to
  MS C

Goal - Demonstrate high material reliability and
availability
85
Production Deployment Logistics Key Events
 

• Continuation of CLS services
• Configuration Management Program
• Data Management (Tech Manuals, Engineering
  Drawings, etc.)
• All SSAT generated data shall be available in the
  contractors IDE
• Supply Support Program based on Contractor
  Supportability Analysis (Spares, Repair of
  Repairable, etc.)
• Training Program (Operators Maintainers)
• PSE
• Mission Installation Kits
• In-Service/Engineering Support
• Support First Article Acceptance Testing
• Initial Operational Capability (IOC)
• Four (4) Targets, Support Equipment, Tech Data,
  Training, Spares

86
Production Deployment Logistics Key Events
 

• Failure Analysis Board (FAB)
• Purpose Formally Assess System Reliability
• Structure Join Membership by key Govt
  Contractor Personnel
• Product Level Functions Represented
• Program Management
• System Engineering
• Logistics
• Adjudication by Govt Program Manager
• Suspected Failures will be initially documented
  using EIRs, PQDRs and Target Performance
  Reports, in accordance with OPNAVINST 8000.16
• Failure Reports and Board Meetings conducted
  quarterly
• Flow process established to achieved resolution
  and consideration, if required

87
Logistics Summary
 

• O to D Product Support Strategy
• SSAT Data, IDE
• SDD Key logistics Events PDR, CDR, TE, System
  Requirements Verification, ILA
• PD Key Logistics Events CLS to support First
  Article Acceptance Testing, IOCs and after
  Site Activation
• FAB

88

• Questions?

89
Questions
After Industry Day and follow on one-on-one
meetings, questions should be submitted to Mr.
Frank Fisher, NAVAIR Contract Specialist, at the
following e-mail address Francis.Fisher_at_navy.mil
90

• Wrap-up
• CAPT Pat Buckley
• Program Manager
• Aerial Target and Decoy Systems