The Analyze/Select Phase

Transcription

1 D page 1 of 32 Long Description Title screen for Module 1, Lesson 3: System Acquisition Life Cycle, with three photos: three people meeting at a conference table, a stoplight, and a group of people meeting.

2 Introduction T&D To print this lesson, select print. page 2 of 32 Long Description [Rachel and a whiteboard with this handwriting on it: Analyze/Select phase = Identify alternatives for a missioneffective, suitable, affordable solution.] Narrator: identifies and explores alternative ways to fill the validated mission need documented in the Mission Needs Statement (MNS) with a mission-effective, suitable, and affordable solution. [Rachel and the Acquisition life cycle framework diagram with the Analyze/Select phase and ADE-2A diamond highlighted.] Narrator: The products of the Analyze/Select phase allow decision makers to select the optimum solution(s) to effectively deliver required capability to users and inform decisions made at Acquisition Decision Event 2A.

3 [Rachel and a whiteboard with the following handwriting on it: The purpose of the Analyze/Select Phase; The key activities of the Analyze/Select Phase; The key products and documents associated with the Analyze/Select Phase.] Narrator: You will be introduced to the following topics in this lesson: The purpose of the Analyze/Select Phase, the key activities of the Analyze/Select Phase, and the key products and documents associated with the Analyze/Select Phase.

4 Learning Objectives Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to: State the acquisition program activities conducted during the Analyze/Select Phase Identify the requirements and planning documents associated with the Analyze/Select Phase Explain the purpose of conducting an AoA Differentiate between an AA and the AoA Explain the importance of establishing the APB page 3 of 32

5 T&D page 4 of 32 Long Description [Analyze/Select Phase chart appears and zooms in to display two triangles labeled ADE-1 and ADE-2A] Narrator: The purpose of the Analyze/Select phase is to identify the optimal solution to meet the user requirements and plan for the Obtain Phase and beyond. The critical groundwork laid in this phase will determine whether the program succeeds or fails. [A list of the primary activities of the Analyze/Select phase appears between the two triangles] Narrator: In order to identify the optimal solution, the program office must accomplish three major activities: The User/Sponsor develops a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) with support from the Program Management Office (PMO) and a complete set of operational requirements in an Operational Requirements Document (ORD).

6 The PMO plans, conducts, and evaluates the results of the Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) or, if appropriate, an Alternatives Analysis (AA). The PMO uses high-level cost estimates and support requirements assembled by the AoA Study Team to develop an Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) for the preferred alternative and then a Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) for the entire program. The PMO documents these identified cost, schedule, and performance requirements in an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) a contract between the PMO, Component Acquisition Executive (CAE), and DHS headquarters and drafts or updates an Acquisition Plan (AP) for the program. Based on the results of the PMO s analysis and planning, the Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) decides whether or not to approve the program at ADE-2A.

7 Key Acquisition Documents As the program office coordinates and executes the activities during the Analyze/Select Phase, it will produce several acquisition documents that it will submit to the Acquisition Review Team (ART) prior to Acquisition Decision Event 2A (ADE-2A). The table below lists all the acquisition documents associated with the phase and the questions those documents answer. Document Mission Needs Statement (MNS) Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Analysis of Alternatives / Alternatives Analysis (AoA/AA) Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) Acquisition Plan (AP) Question It Answers What do we need? How will it behave in the field? What are our performance requirements? What's our best option? How will we support it? How much will it cost? What is our contract with the ADA? How can we strategically acquire this capability? As you go through the lesson and learn about the key activities of the phase in more detail, keep these questions in mind. page 5 of 32

8 Knowledge Check Which of the following is NOT a key activity of the Analyze/Select phase? Identify the need Analyze the alternatives Identify the operational requirements Identify the resource requirements Submit page 6 of 32 Needs are identified during Pre-Acquisition and documented during the Need phase, not during the Analyze/ Select phase.

9 Recap: Introduction Review the key concepts introduced in this topic: explores alternative ways to satisfy the user's need with a mission-effective, suitable, and affordable solution. In order to identify the optimal solution, the program office and the User/Sponsor must: 1) identify the operational requirements for the solution, 2) analyze the viable alternative solutions, and 3) identify the resources required to design, develop, deliver, and support that solution over its life cycle. The program office then documents these identified requirements in an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) and develops an Acquisition Plan (AP) for strategically acquiring the solution. The program office will produce several acquisition documents during the phase that it will submit to the Acquisition Review Team (ART) prior to ADE-2A. The next topic is Identify Operational Requirements. page 7 of 32

10 Introduction to Identify Operational Requirements The first key activity of the Analyze/Select Phase is to identify the user's operational requirements. With support from the PMO (and the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on its cross-functional integrated product/project teams), the User/Sponsor leads the development of a CONOPS and an ORD. These documents help answer the questions, "How will the solution behave in the field?" and "What are our performance requirements for the solution?" These operational requirements will provide input into the AoA, the results of which will in turn provide input into the final CONOPS and ORD. You'll be introduced to the following concepts in this topic: How the User/Sponsor develops the CONOPS and the ORD What Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) are and where they are documented What threshold and objective values are (for KPPs) and why they're important page 8 of 32 PMO Program Management Office integrated product/project teams A team composed of representatives from various functional disciplines working together to carry out an acquisition function. An IPT may include members from both Government and industry (after award). Concept of Operations (CONOPS) A formal document that describes the user s environment and process relative to a new or modified system. Operational Requirements Document (ORD)

11 The ORD is a formal document which provides a bridge between the operational requirements spelled out in the MNS and the detailed technical requirements found in the system technical specifications. The MNS and ORD are written by the Sponsor, whereas the technical specifications are written by the development organization. The ORD establishes absolute minimums (thresholds) below which the mission cannot be successfully performed, and also sets goals to define an operationally effective system. Compare to Mission Need Statement.

12 Concept of Operations and Operational Requirements Document Concept of Operations (CONOPS) The CONOPS contrasts from the user's perspective the current way the sponsoring organization operates to execute the assigned mission with future methods of operating using potential capability solutions. The CONOPS defines the capability in greater detail than the MNS and CDP and supports development of the AoA/AA and ORD. Operational Requirements Document (ORD) The ORD captures the User/Sponsor's Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and other operational requirements. Operational requirements are high-level requirements that describe the mission, objectives, and capabilities in operationally relevant terms. The requirements documented in the ORD should be traceable to the MNS and CDP. Select each tab within the binder to learn more about the CONOPS and ORD. D Long Description page 9 of 32 Interactive three ring binder with selectable tabs.

13 Concept of Operations Purpose The CONOPS contrasts from the user's perspective the current way the sponsoring organization operates to execute the assigned mission with future methods of operating using potential capability solutions. The CONOPS defines the capability in greater detail than the MNS and CDP and supports development of the AoA/AA and ORD. Prepared by The User/Sponsor develops the CONOPS in parallel and interactively with the AoA/AA and ORD. Process To develop the CONOPS, the User/Sponsor: Begins with a baseline CONOPS that describes current operating methods Describes the deficiencies and gaps in the "as-is" operations (referring back to the MNS and CDP) Gathers data to identify potential new ways to respond to future threats and conditions and eliminate current deficiencies Feeds those new ideas into the AoA/AA for technical and cost analysis Updates the CONOPS as alternatives are analyzed (AoA/AA) and develops more detailed capability needs from identified scenarios Finalizes the CONOPS using the preferred solution(s) from the AoA/AA Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix F: Concept of Operations contains CONOPS development guidance and a sample template. Operational Requirements Document Purpose The ORD captures the User/Sponsor s Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and other operational requirements. Operational requirements are high-level requirements that describe the mission, objectives, and capabilities in operationally relevant terms. The requirements documented in the ORD should be traceable to the MNS and CDP. Prepared By The User/Sponsor develops the ORD in parallel and interactively with the AoA/AA and CONOPS, with support from the PMO and SMEs as required. Process To develop the ORD, the User/Sponsor: Uses the parameters from the AoA/AA and CONOPS analyses to populate the ORD (the final ORD should reflect the parameters of the preferred alternative) Identifies and documents Critical Operational Issues (COIs) that describe what the capability must be able to do in its operational environment to meet the mission need

14 Identifies and documents KPPs that must be satisfied by the capability. The minimal acceptable level for each KPP (threshold) and the maximum desired level (objective) should be provided Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix H: Operational Requirements Document contains ORD development guidance and a sample template. Approval The ADA approves the ORD at ADE-2A. Capability Development Plan Purpose The purpose of the Capability Development Plan (CDP) is to serve as the agreement between the Component Head, the Program/Project Manager (PM), and the Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) on the activities, cost, schedule, and performance boundaries of the work to be performed in the Analyze/Select phase. This critical period leading up to ADE-2A develops the knowledge used by the ADA to make informed decisions on the performance, schedule, and cost of the program that will effectively deliver capabilities to users. Prepared by The PM prepares the CDP with input from the User/Sponsor, cost analysts, logisticians, and other subject matter experts (SMEs). Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix D: Capability Development Plan contains guidance and a sample CDP template. Approval The ADA approves the CDP at ADE-1. Mission Needs Statement Purpose The MNS describes a specific functional capability required by users to accomplish a Component mission or objective. The MNS: Describes the problem, NOT the solution Is a formal description of a strategic need for investment Initiates acquisition program management process

15 Is the basis for submitting a Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) to request funding Prepared by The MNS is prepared by the User/Sponsor that identifies the need. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix C: Mission Needs Statement contains guidance and a sample MNS template. Approval The MNS is approved by the ADA at ADE-1. Example For example, a MNS identifying a gap in Customs and Border Protection s capability for ensuring the security of the US-Mexico border might describe a need to enhance agents ability to detect people entering the country illegally. Preliminary Missions Need Statement Purpose The purpose of the P-MNS is to state the need at a top-level, clearly and accurately, as a basis for developing a Mission Needs Statement (MNS) and submitting a Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) to request funding for a future acquisition. Prepared by The P-MNS is prepared by the User/Sponsor that identifies the need. Appendix The P-MNS is drafted using the same format as for a MNS, which is located in Instruction/Guidebook Appendix C: Mission Needs Statement. The User/Sponsor only completes those sections for which knowledge is available. Approval The P-MNS is approved by the Component at ADE-0 and sent to the ADA for review. Additional Information The P-MNS is not a formal requirement; if the Component desires, it may develop a MNS directly without developing a P-MNS first.

16 Key Performance Parameters One of the ORD's main functions is to document the user's KPPs. KPPs are non-negotiable requirements that the system must meet to fulfill its fundamental purpose; they are system characteristics and capabilities considered essential in order to successfully accomplish the mission. KPPs should be linked to specific DHS missions and goals. Normally, programs will identify between four and eight KPPs. Ask the following questions when selecting KPPs: Is it essential for defining system or required capabilities? Does it align with performance measures linking capabilities with Component and DHS organizational goals? Is it achievable and testable? Can the numbers/percentages be explained by analysis? If not met, are you willing to cancel the program? For example, the ORD for a sensor to detect humans crossing the U.S. border might specify detection range, sensitivity, and response time as KPPs. If interoperability with other systems or agencies is an important factor in mission accomplishment, interoperability must be included as a KPP. page 10 of 32

17 Thresholds and Objectives For each KPP, the User/Sponsor establishes an absolute performance minimum, or threshold, below which the mission cannot be successfully performed. They also set objectives for selected requirements, values beyond the thresholds that reflect desired program performance yields. Objectives should be a level of performance that significantly improves mission performance, safety, or supportability beyond the thresholds. Objectives are not required but can provide guidance to the system developer on areas where the User/Sponsor would like to see increased capability. If objectives are defined, they also give the PMO space to make trade-offs and fact-of-life changes during program execution. Some KPPs will only have a threshold value. If we extend our example of a sensor to detect humans crossing the U.S. border: Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Detection Range 1 mile 2 miles Sensitivity 20 nanometers/degree Celsius 10 nanometers/degree Celsius Response Time 30 microseconds 12 microseconds Between the threshold and objective values, the program office may have to make trade-offs. For example, a sensor that meets the objective for sensitivity might be prohibitively more expensive than one that meets the threshold. One model of sensor might meet the objective for detection range, but barely meet the threshold for sensitivity at that range. The staff in the PMO must make tradeoffs to find the optimal solution. page 11 of 32 KPP Key Performance Parameter PMO Program Management Office

18 Skip Navigation Knowledge Check Which of the following activities are parts of the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) development? Select all that apply. The User/Sponsor describes the deficiencies and gaps in the "as-is" operations The User/Sponsor gathers data to identify potential new ideas and concepts to respond to future threats and conditions and eliminate current deficiencies The User/Sponsor begins with a baseline that describes current operating methods used to fulfill assigned missions and tasks in the operational environment The User/Sponsor develops Critical Operational Issues (COIs) that describe what the capability must be able to do to meet the mission need Submit page 12 of 32 All are a part of CONOPS development except for COIs. The User/Sponsor develops COIs for the ORD, not the CONOPS.

19 CHEM-Bot Operational Requirements The CHEM-Bot program is now in the Analyze/Select Phase. Let's check in with the program office for an example of operational requirements development. Users from CBP are drafting an ORD for CHEM-Bot. The ORD calls for an unmanned (robotic) system equipped with state-of-the-art sensors that meets the following KPPs: Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Detection capability/accuracy 18 chemicals with 95% accuracy 21 chemicals with 98% accuracy Number of false positives 0 N/A Operating Conditions Indoors, Outdoors, Day, Night, Rain, Fog Ice, Snow Preliminary market research indicates that robotic technology is currently available to meet the threshold requirements for the vehicle to operate indoors, outdoors, day and night, in rain and fog; however, the technology required to meet the threshold requirement for chemical detection is still evolving, and it could take up to 2 years before a sensor is available that can reliably detect 18 toxic chemicals. We'll use the CHEM-Bot program throughout the remainder of this lesson to reinforce upcoming concepts, and at the end of this lesson you'll participate in a high-level AoA for the program. page 13 of 32 ORD Operational Requirements Document KPPs Key Performance Parameters AoA Analysis of Alternatives

20 Recap: Identify the Operational Requirements Review the key concepts introduced in this topic: The Concept of Operations (CONOPS) contrasts the current way the sponsoring organization operates to execute the assigned mission with future methods of operating using potential capability solutions (from the User/Sponsor's perspective) The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) captures the User/Sponsor's Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and other operational requirements KPPs are non-negotiable requirements that the system must meet to fulfill its fundamental purpose For each KPP, the User/Sponsor establishes an absolute performance minimum, or threshold, below which the mission cannot be successfully performed For selected KPPs, the User/Sponsor sets objectives--values beyond the thresholds that reflect desired program performance yields The next topic is Analyze Alternatives. page 14 of 32

21 Introduction to Analyze the Alternatives The second key activity of the Analyze/Select Phase is to analyze the alternatives. To do so, the PMO plans, conducts, and evaluates the results of an AoA or, if appropriate, an AA. Both an AoA and an AA include the development of a study plan, the selection of a study team, a study plan review, and execution of the analysis. The goal is to answer the question, "What's our best option?" You'll be introduced to the following concepts in this topic: The difference between materiel, non-materiel, and hybrid solutions The purpose of an AoA/AA The process for planning and executing an AoA/AA page 15 of 32

22 Materiel vs. Non-Materiel Solutions An AoA/ AA helps ensure unbiased exploration of a broad range of feasible alternatives from across the DOTMLPF plus R/G/S spectrum. Within this context, it's important to understand the difference between non-materiel, materiel, and hybrid solutions when exploring alternative ways to meet a valid mission need. Select each tab for additional information. Non-Materiel Materiel Hybrid Any alternatives from the DOTMLPF + R/G/S factor model that don't involve materiel (e.g., technology, vehicles) are considered non-materiel solutions. For example, if a basic training program will satisfy your mission need by itself, that training program would be a non-materiel solution. page 16 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives AA Alternatives Analysis DOTMLPF plus R/G/S Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities plus Regulations/Grants/Standards Non-Materiel

23 Any alternatives from the DOTMLPF + R/G/S factor model that don't involve materiel (e.g., technology, vehicles) are considered non-materiel solutions. For example, if a basic training program will satisfy your mission need by itself, that training program would be a non-materiel solution. Materiel Materiel solutions involve more research and development and extensive testing and evaluation. Examples of materiel solutions are special equipment and customized vehicles. Materiel solutions are not preferred, since they are usually more expensive and slower to implement. Hybrid Very rarely will you find a purely materiel solution, as deploying materiel solutions impacts other aspects of the DOTMLPF + R/G/S factor model. Holistic solutions to Homeland Security problems, also called hybrid solutions, involve all these factors. For example, fielding a new system necessarily involves identifying and training personnel to operate and support the system. It is critical that both the materiel and non-materiel elements of a total capability are realized and delivered synchronously to the user.

24 Analysis of Alternatives An AoA is an analytical comparison of selected alternative solutions for fulfilling the specific capability need. An AoA explores both materiel and non-materiel alternatives to identify the most promising approach within practical performance, cost, schedule, and risk boundaries, making trade-offs to achieve a balanced solution. An AoA helps ensure unbiased exploration of a broad range of feasible alternatives, such as those identified in the Capability Development Plan (CDP). There are three main steps in an AoA. Step 1: Develop an AoA Study Plan The Study Plan defines the assumptions, scope, and constraints on the analysis, and may require that certain alternatives be examined to "open up" the trade space. The Study Plan organizes the AoA, documenting: The selection of an objective study team director or co-chairs The participating organizations and their roles and responsibilities The review and approval process for the AoA, including briefing senior leaders A schedule and required resources, including subject matter experts (SMEs) How the AoA study team will interface with CONOPS and ORD development page 17 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives CONOPS Concept of Operations ORD Operational Requirements Document

25 Analysis of Alternatives: Step 2 Step 2: Conduct an AoA Study Plan Review (SPR) Once the AoA Study Plan has been developed (after ADE-1 and a minimum of 15 days before initiating the AoA, per DHS policy), a Study Plan Review (SPR) is conducted in accordance with the Systems Engineering Life Cycle (SELC). During the review, a team reviews the adequacy of the AoA Study Plan, including the scope and identified methods of analysis. The review team includes representatives from the Program Accountability and Risk Management (PARM) office. page 18 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives

26 Analysis of Alternatives: Step 3 Step 3: Analyze Solution Alternatives Once the AoA Study Plan has been reviewed and approved, the study team conducts their analysis. During the execution of the AoA, the study team: Fully engages the User/Sponsor on the team Establishes criteria for selecting alternatives based on cost, schedule, and risk requirements Identifies high-level requirements from the study plan, CONOPS, etc. to eliminate less desirable alternatives Develops cost estimates for each remaining alternative to the depth needed to decide whether to pursue them Conducts a Business Case Analysis for the viable solutions Makes trade-offs among performance, life cycle cost, schedule, and risk Presents results to decision makers in a report/briefing that summarizes performance versus top-level cost, schedule, and risks for the most effective and feasible options, so they can fully understand the tradespace and select a preferred solution page 19 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives CONOPS Concept of Operations

27 Analysis of Alternatives: Parallel Development The program office and the AoA Study Team develop the AoA in parallel and interactively with the CONOPS and ORD. That means that the User/Sponsor is developing the CONOPS and ORD at the same time, and that both provide input to each other. The AoA helps define feasible, suitable, and affordable KPPs and provides high-level Life Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCEs) for each alternative, both of which provide input to the ORD. Conversely, the operational and performance requirements the User/Sponsor is generating influence the study team's analysis and help refine and focus the AoA. Instruction/Guidebook , Appendix G: Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) contains AoA development guidance and a sample template. page 20 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives CONOPS Concept of Operations ORD Operational Requirements Document

28 Alternatives Analysis In cases where a specific materiel solution has already been determined to best meet the need, a more focused AA may be proposed to the ADA. For example, if the Coast Guard knows more advanced cutters with enhanced capabilities are needed to execute their mission, their AA might consider: 1) a new cutter design, 2) modifying an existing design, or 3) upgrading existing cutters with the enhanced capabilities. The AA process is the same as the AoA process, but an AA tends to focus on a relatively bounded materiel solution requiring less research and development (R&D), and is conducted and approved by the Component. An AA examines the performance implications of various ways to implement the materiel solution in more detail, and may be affected by cost and schedule constraints. The template in Instruction/Guidebook , Appendix G may be tailored when conducting an AA. Based on the CDP, the decision whether to conduct an AoA or an AA is made at ADE-1. If the MNS indicates a cross-component need or solution, or if the potential program involves a major R&D effort, an AoA is usually required. Here are some examples of AoAs vs. AAs. Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) Would roaming officers, additional checkpoints, or aerial observation best satisfy a border security need? Would trained dogs, hand-held radiation detection devices, or full-body scanners be the best detection system for this particular need? Alternatives Analysis (AA) Which of these three existing warehouses would best satisfy a facilities need? Which of these three commercial-off-the-shelf enterprise resource planning software applications would best satisfy our management need? page 21 of 32 ADA Acquisition Decision Authority AoA Analysis of Alternatives CDP Capabilities Development Plan ADE-1 Acquisition Decision Event - 1

29 MNS Mission Needs Statement

30 Knowledge Check Which of the following is a key way in which an Alternatives Analysis (AA) differs from an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)? An AA is an analytical comparison from a cost and performance perspective of alternative solutions. An AA follows a three-step process: 1) develop a study plan, 2) conduct a Study Plan Review (SPR), 3) analyze alternative solutions. An AA tends to focus on a relatively bounded materiel solution with less required research and development. An AA ensures unbiased exploration of a broad range of feasible alternatives from across the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities plus Regulations/Grants/Standards (DOTMLPF +R/G/S) spectrum. Submit page 22 of 32 Unlike an AoA, an AA tends to focus on a relatively bounded materiel solution with less required research and development.

31 CHEM-Bot Alternatives In the CHEM-Bot program office, the AoA Study Team has identified alternative solutions to CBP's capability gap. With assistance from Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, Dr. Jeffries, the CHEM-Bot PM, has narrowed the field down to three feasible alternative robot vehicles with the potential to satisfy the user requirements. Select each image below to learn more about each alternative. page 23 of 32 The Joint Unmanned Ground Vehicle (JUGV) The JUGV is a tracked vehicle initially developed for Army and Marine Corps mine-sweeping missions. This robot is highly ruggedized and can operate in rough terrain and under all weather conditions, including ice and snow; however, a chemical sensor would need to be integrated into the system. R&D cost for the JUGV is estimated at $25 million, and unit production cost is estimated at $40,000. Operations & Support (O&S) costs are expected to be $5,000 per unit, per year. The team estimates the integrated system could be ready for production 32 months after ADE-2A. SENTRY The SENTRY is a wheeled vehicle, originally developed by General Robotics to detect intruders at dock facilities, airfields, and storage yards. The robot operates in rain and fog, but it does not function well in ice or snow. It also has a tendency to tip over when going up or down steep ramps. SENTRY has a built-in chemical sensor that detects 8 of the 18 threshold chemical substances, but it reports false positives, and therefore would need to be replaced with a more capable and reliable sensor. The R&D cost to replace the sensor and correct the ramp navigation problem is

32 estimated at $35 million, and unit production cost is estimated at $25,000. O&S costs are expected to be $3,500 per unit, per year. The team estimates the integrated system could be ready for production 34 months after ADE-2A. ZeppelinBot The ZeppelinBot is an experimental, remote-controlled zeppelin developed in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) robotics lab. Preliminary discussions with MIT have been very favorable, as the zeppelin has no problems with terrain and can reach targets higher off the ground than conventional ground vehicles. Though the ZeppelinBot is an early prototype, MIT is confident that they can develop a zeppelin that is small enough to easily maneuver in tight spaces and strong enough to carry the sensors and other necessary equipment. R&D cost is estimated at $48 million, with a unit production cost of $10,000. O&S costs are expected to be $3,000 per unit, per year. The team estimates the system could be ready for production 36 months after ADE-2A. AoA Analysis of Alternatives CBP\'s Customs and Border Protection\'s PM Program Manager

33 Recap: Analyze the Alternatives Review the key concepts introduced in this topic: An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) / Alternatives Analysis (AA) explore feasible alternatives from across the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, and Facilities plus Research/Grants/Standards (DOTMLPF +R/G/S) spectrum, including materiel, non-materiel, and hybrid solutions. An AoA is an analytical comparison of selected alternative solutions for fulfilling a capability need with the goal of identifying the most promising solution within practical performance, cost, schedule, and risk boundaries. If a specific materiel solution has already been identified, a more limited AA can be conducted and approved by the Component. The AoA/AA process is: 1) develop an AoA/AA Study Plan, 2) conduct an AoA/AA Study Plan Review (SPR), 3) analyze alternative solutions / execute the analysis. The next topic is Identify the Resource Requirements page 24 of 32

34 Introduction to Identify Resource Requirements The third key activity of the Analyze/Select Phase is to identify the program's resource requirements. In support of this activity, the program office uses the data gathered during the AoA to develop a logistics support strategy and document it in an Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP). Using the ILSP and the high-level cost estimates from the AoA/AA, the program office can develop an initial Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) for the program. Finally, the program office uses the cost (LCCE), schedule (arising from the AoA/AA), and performance requirements (ORD) established throughout the phase to create an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), a "contract" between the PMO, Component Acquisition Executive (CAE), and DHS headquarters. The program office also drafts or updates an Acquisition Plan (AP) for the program. You'll be introduced to the following concepts in this topic: The purpose of the ILSP, LCCE, APB, and AP What constitutes an APB breach page 25 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives ORD Operational Requirements Document PMO Program Management Office Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) The formal acquisition management document that describes the management approach for obtaining a highly supportable capability with an affordable and effective support structure.

35 Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) An exhaustive accounting of all resources and associated cost elements required to develop, produce, deploy, and sustain a particular program. Typically, a LCCE addresses four phases: research & development (R&D), procurement & investment, operations & support, and disposal. Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) A summary of the critical cost, schedule, and performance parameters, expressed in measurable, quantitative terms, which must be met in order to accomplish the goals of the investment. Acquisition Plan The process by which the efforts of all personnel responsible for an acquisition are coordinated and integrated through a comprehensive plan for fulfilling the agency s need in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. It includes developing the overall strategy for managing the acquisition.

36 More Acquisition Documentation: ILSP, LCCE, APB, AP In addition to the User/Sponsor defining the requirements and the program office analyzing the alternatives, there are a number of critical, interrelated acquisition activities that take place during the Analyze/Select Phase: Logistics support planning: the PMO plans for the logistics support and sustainment infrastructure that the fielded system will require to remain available and ready to operate once deployed; documented in an ILSP Life cycle cost estimating: the PMO uses the requirements in the ORD, the results of the AoA/ AA, and its own preliminary logistics support planning to create an LCCE for the program Establishing cost, schedule, and performance baselines: the PMO uses the completed ORD, initial LCCE, and the schedule ramifications from the study team's AoA/AA findings and other planning activities in the phase to establish an APB Acquisition planning: the PMO starts defining the program's acquisition strategy and planning the program's projects and/or contracting activities; captured in an AP Select the relevant tabs within the binder to learn more about the ILSP, LCCE, APB, and AP. D Long Description Interactive three ring binder with selectable tabs. page 26 of 32 PMO Program Management Office

37 ILSP Integrated Logistics Support Plan ORD Operational Requirements Document AoA Analysis of Alternatives AA Alternatives Analysis LCCE Life Cycle Cost Estimate APB Acquisition Program Baseline AP Acquisition Plan

38 Integrated Logistics Support Plan Purpose The ILSP answers the question, "How will we support and sustain the system?" A proper, comprehensive ILSP ensures that supportability and sustainment are considered during system design and development, improving the chances of successfully supporting the system once fielded. Prepared by The program's Life Cycle Logistics Manager prepares the ILSP with oversight from the PM, and often with the support of an IPT. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook , Appendix J: Supportability and Sustainment provides development guidance and a sample template for the ILSP. Approval The ADA approves the ILSP at ADE-2A. The PMO continues to update the ILSP throughout the acquisition life cycle, and it's reviewed at each subsequent ADE. Life Cycle Cost Estimate Purpose An LCCE answers the question, "How much will the system cost over its life cycle?" A program s LCCE serves as the cost input for acquisition decisions, programming, and budget requests to Congress. The Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) process is the gateway for getting resources allocated to the program, and the LCCE is used much further upstream than just the budget year in the process. The LCCE must be comprehensive (i.e., include planning, research & development, testing & evaluation, acquisition, personnel, facilities, deployment, operations, maintenance, disposal, etc.). Prepared by Acquisition Financial Managers and Cost Analysts supporting the PMO prepare the LCCE using inputs from a variety of sources, including the results of the AoA analysis and the ILSP. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix I: Life Cycle Cost Estimate points acquisition professionals to the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (available online) for guidance on creating an LCCE. Approval

39 The Component approves the LCCE at ADE-2A, and the PMO will continue to update it throughout the acquisition life cycle. Acquisition Program Baseline Purpose The purpose of the APB is to define the cost, schedule, and performance parameters for the program that the PMO will be accountable for in quantitative, measurable, testable terms. The APB serves as the PMO's "contract" with the customer and DHS headquarters. The APB must: Relate to the need expressed in the MNS Track the KPPs detailed in the ORD in terms of thresholds and objectives Be consistent with the program's LCCE Align with the resources programmed in the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) Prepared By The PMO prepares the APB. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix K: Acquisition Program Baseline provides guidance on APB development, including a sample template. Approval The ADA approves the APB at ADE-2A. Acquisition Plan Purpose The AP answers the question, "How can we strategically acquire this capability?" The AP contains the overarching acquisition strategy, and is used to inform and integrate activities across the acquisition, including acquisition planning and integrated support planning. The AP should provide: A clear statement of the desired acquisition outcomes A comprehensive description of the business environment An assessment of the potential supplier base for desired goods and services A top-level strategy for sustainment and support Recommendations for the overall acquisition approach and types of acquisition (e.g., asset acquisitions, services acquisitions, IAAs)

40 Prepared by The Acquisition Plan is prepared by the PM and Contracting Specialists in the PMO. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook : Appendix E points users to the DHS Acquisition Planning Guide for guidance in developing an Acquisition Plan. Programs should contact PARM for tailoring guidance of the specific sections and AP content based on the unique conditions of each acquisition. Approval The AP is a living document that spans the life of the acquisition, and will be updated and expanded over time. The PMO starts developing the AP after ADE-1, and updates it to support ADE-2A and 2B. The Chief Procurement Officer approves the AP at ADE-2A. Concept of Operations Purpose The CONOPS contrasts from the user's perspective the current way the sponsoring organization operates to execute the assigned mission with future methods of operating using potential capability solutions. The CONOPS defines the capability in greater detail than the MNS and CDP and supports development of the AoA/AA and ORD. Prepared by The User/Sponsor develops the CONOPS in parallel and interactively with the AoA/AA and ORD. Process To develop the CONOPS, the User/Sponsor: Begins with a baseline CONOPS that describes current operating methods Describes the deficiencies and gaps in the "as-is" operations (referring back to the MNS and CDP) Gathers data to identify potential new ways to respond to future threats and conditions and eliminate current deficiencies Feeds those new ideas into the AoA/AA for technical and cost analysis Updates the CONOPS as alternatives are analyzed (AoA/AA) and develops more detailed capability needs from identified scenarios Finalizes the CONOPS using the preferred solution(s) from the AoA/AA Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix F: Concept of Operations contains CONOPS development guidance and a sample template.

41 Operational Requirements Document Purpose The ORD captures the User/Sponsor s Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) and other operational requirements. Operational requirements are high-level requirements that describe the mission, objectives, and capabilities in operationally relevant terms. The requirements documented in the ORD should be traceable to the MNS and CDP. Prepared By The User/Sponsor develops the ORD in parallel and interactively with the AoA/AA and CONOPS, with support from the PMO and SMEs as required. Process To develop the ORD, the User/Sponsor: Uses the parameters from the AoA/AA and CONOPS analyses to populate the ORD (the final ORD should reflect the parameters of the preferred alternative) Identifies and documents Critical Operational Issues (COIs) that describe what the capability must be able to do in its operational environment to meet the mission need Identifies and documents KPPs that must be satisfied by the capability. The minimal acceptable level for each KPP (threshold) and the maximum desired level (objective) should be provided Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix H: Operational Requirements Document contains ORD development guidance and a sample template. Approval The ADA approves the ORD at ADE-2A. Capability Development Plan Purpose The purpose of the Capability Development Plan (CDP) is to serve as the agreement between the Component Head, the Program/Project Manager (PM), and the Acquisition Decision Authority (ADA) on the activities, cost, schedule, and performance boundaries of the work to be performed in the Analyze/Select phase. This critical period leading up to ADE-2A develops the knowledge used by the ADA to make informed decisions on the performance, schedule, and cost of the program that will effectively deliver capabilities to users. Prepared by The PM prepares the CDP with input from the User/Sponsor, cost analysts, logisticians, and other subject matter experts (SMEs). Appendix

42 Instruction/Guidebook Appendix D: Capability Development Plan contains guidance and a sample CDP template. Approval The ADA approves the CDP at ADE-1. Mission Needs Statement Purpose The MNS describes a specific functional capability required by users to accomplish a Component mission or objective. The MNS: Describes the problem, NOT the solution Is a formal description of a strategic need for investment Initiates acquisition program management process Is the basis for submitting a Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) to request funding Prepared by The MNS is prepared by the User/Sponsor that identifies the need. Appendix Instruction/Guidebook Appendix C: Mission Needs Statement contains guidance and a sample MNS template. Approval The MNS is approved by the ADA at ADE-1. Example For example, a MNS identifying a gap in Customs and Border Protection s capability for ensuring the security of the US-Mexico border might describe a need to enhance agents ability to detect people entering the country illegally. Preliminary Missions Need Statement Purpose The purpose of the P-MNS is to state the need at a top-level, clearly and accurately, as a basis for developing a Mission Needs Statement (MNS) and submitting a Resource Allocation Plan (RAP) to request funding for a future acquisition.

43 Prepared by The P-MNS is prepared by the User/Sponsor that identifies the need. Appendix The P-MNS is drafted using the same format as for a MNS, which is located in Instruction/Guidebook Appendix C: Mission Needs Statement. The User/Sponsor only completes those sections for which knowledge is available. Approval The P-MNS is approved by the Component at ADE-0 and sent to the ADA for review. Additional Information The P-MNS is not a formal requirement; if the Component desires, it may develop a MNS directly without developing a P-MNS first.

44 APB Breach If a program is going to exceed a cost threshold, slip past a schedule threshold, or fail to achieve the customer s performance thresholds, the program is in breach of its APB. The PM must notify the ADA and propose corrective action within 30 days of the breach. A template for reporting the remediation plan is included in Instruction/Guidebook : Appendix K. Within 90 days of notification, the program must: Be back on track Have a new approved baseline Have been subjected to a program review There are many different reasons programs breach their APBs test failures, mechanical failures, late deliveries, design flaws, inaccurate forecasting, etc. Sometimes the breach is caused by something completely outside the program and beyond the PM's control. The threat may change, the requirement may no longer exist, or it may be superseded by a higher priority, causing Congress to reduce funding. A breach is a reason to re-evaluate, rebaseline, and possibly terminate a program. page 27 of 32 APB Acquisition Program Baseline PM Project Manager ADA Acquisition Decision Authority

45 Knowledge Check For each question below, select the document that answers that question from the drop-down list provided. What do we need? MNS How will it behave in the field? CONOPS What are our performance requirements? ORD What's our best option? AoA/AA How will we support it? ILSP How much will it cost? LCCE What is our contract with the ADA? APB How can we strategically acquire this capability? AP Show my answer page 28 of 32 What do we need? MNS How will it behave in the field? CONOPS What are our performance requirements? ORD What's our best option? AoA/AA How will we support it? ILSP How much will it cost? LCCE What is our contract with the ADA? APB How can we strategically acquire this capability? AP

46 ADE-2A ("Approve the Program") The purpose of ADE-2A is to verify that the potential acquisition has well-defined operational requirements; a balanced, effective, and achievable solution; a complete LCCE for that solution; and complete acquisition and support plans. Types of questions the ADA will ask at ADE-2A: Are the operational requirements valid, complete, testable, and measurable? Is the AoA/ AA adequate? Does it recommend and justify the best option? Do the other required analyses (i.e., AP, LCCE, ILSP, etc.) adequately cover the full scope of the effort to deliver the capability? Does the APB clearly bound the scope of the acquisition, include the KPPs from the ORD, and include costs taken from the LCCE? Are the major risks identified and adequately managed? At the ADE-2A Acquisition Review Board (ARB), the ADA grants approval for the acquisition to enter into the Obtain phase. The decision, any issues discussed, and action items assigned by the ADA are documented in an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM). page 29 of 32 ADE-2A Acquisition Decision Event - 2A LCCE Life Cycle Cost Estimate ADA Acquisition Decision Authority AoA Analysis of Alternatives

47 AA Alternatives Analysis AP Acquisition Plan ILSP Integrated Logistics Support Plan APB Acquisition Program Baseline KPPs Key Performance Parameters ORD Operational Requirements Document

48 CHEM-Bot Resource Requirements The CHEM-Bot Program's AoA study team is nearing the completion of its analysis and preparing to report its findings. CBP needs to begin fielding CHEM-Bot systems to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) within three years of ADE-2A, which is scheduled 15 months from today. Initially, three CHEM-Bot systems will be fielded at a location to be determined, along with the trained and equipped personnel needed to operate and maintain those systems. Ultimately, 500 CHEM-bot systems will be deployed at seaports along both coasts. CHEM-Bot is considered an "urgent need," and funds are being reprogrammed from the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Defense System (RDCDS) program to get CHEM-Bot off the ground. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE): Research & Development Procurement Operations & Support $15 million $20 million (500 systems) $35 million (10 years) We now have enough information to compare the feasible alternatives and identify our preferred solution. page 30 of 32 AoA Analysis of Alternatives CBP Customs and Border Protection ADE-2A Acquisition Decision Event - 2A

49 CHEM-Bot Analysis of Alternatives You are an analyst on the CHEM-Bot AoA study team. The table below summarizes what you've learned during the Analyze/Select phase so far. Based on the data, select your preferred alternative. Use the links above the table to help you make your choice and the field below the table to type your answer and your reasoning. Select each link below to review what you've learned about the CHEM-Bot program in the Analyze/Select phase. Operational Requirements Alternatives Resource Requirements Alternative Cost ($M) Performance Schedule R&D Prod. O&S Total Pros Cons Months after ADE-2A TARGET N/A N/A 36 (IOC) JUGV K x 500 units = 20 5 K x 500 units x 10 yrs = Ruggedized All weather Already fielded Needs chemical sensor Treads need frequent maintenance 32 SENTRY K x 500 units = K x 500 units x 10 yrs = Meets conditions threshold Designed for the operational environment Needs better sensor Ramp navigation issue Not good in ice and snow 34 ZeppelinBot K x 500 units = 5 3 K x 500 units x 10 yrs = No terrain limitations Can reach higher containers Immature technology High technical risk 36 Type your answer and your reasoning in the field below. When you are finished, select Submit. AoA

50 Analysis of Alternatives There is no correct answer; there is usually a best answer. All three are defensible, but the hardest to defend is ZeppelinBot. ZeppelinBot has the greatest technical risk (immature technology) and schedule risk (lead time is at the threshold). SENTRY appears to be the lowest-cost alternative, but it s unclear how costly it will ultimately be to correct the ramp navigation problem, and the O&S cost estimate seems low based on historical trends. However, SENTRY already has a built-in sensor. The JUGV may have the highest cost risk, because it is on the edge of the government cost estimate, but it also has the most realistic O&S cost. The JUGV has the least overall risk, because it s a proven, functional robotic vehicle that just needs a sensor. Dilemmas and tradeoffs are a way of life in acquisition. PMs must constantly balance cost, schedule, and performance constraints and risks. If you identified unknowns, questioned cost estimates, and considered life cycle cost and overall risk, you re on track.

51 CHEM-Bot Operational Requirements The CHEM-Bot program is now in the Analyze/Select Phase. Let's check in with the program office for an example of operational requirements development. Users from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are drafting an ORD for CHEM-Bot. The ORD calls for an unmanned (robotic) system equipped with state-of-the-art sensors that meets the following KPPs: Key Performance Parameter Threshold Objective Detection capability/accuracy 18 chemicals with 95% accuracy 21 chemicals with 98% accuracy Number of false positives 0 N/A Operating Conditions Indoors, Outdoors, Day, Night, Rain, Fog Ice, Snow Preliminary market research indicates that robotic technology is currently available to meet the threshold requirements for the vehicle to operate indoors, outdoors, day and night, in rain and fog; however, the technology required to meet the threshold requirement for chemical detection is still evolving, and it could take up to 2 years before a sensor is available that can reliably detect 18 toxic chemicals. We'll use the CHEM-Bot program throughout the remainder of this lesson to reinforce upcoming concepts, and at the end of this lesson you'll participate in a high-level Analysis of Alternatives for the program. CHEM-Bot Alternatives In the CHEM-Bot program office, the AoA Study Team has identified alternative solutions to CBP's capability gap. With assistance from Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories, Dr. Jeffries, the CHEM-Bot PM, has narrowed the field down to three feasible alternative robot vehicles with the potential to satisfy the user requirements. The Joint Unmanned Ground Vehicle (JUGV) The JUGV is a tracked vehicle initially developed for Army and Marine Corps mine-sweeping missions. This robot is highly ruggedized and can operate in rough terrain and under all weather conditions, including ice and snow; however, a chemical sensor would need to be integrated into the system. R&D cost for the JUGV is estimated at $25 million, and unit production cost is estimated at $40,000. Operations & Support (O&S) costs are expected to be $5,000 per unit, per year. The team estimates the integrated system could be ready for production 32 months after ADE-2A. SENTRY The SENTRY is a wheeled vehicle, originally developed by General Robotics to detect intruders at dock facilities, airfields, and storage yards. The robot operates in rain and fog, but it does not function well in ice or snow. It also has a tendency to tip over when going up or down steep ramps. SENTRY has a

52 built-in chemical sensor that detects 8 of the 18 threshold chemical substances, but it reports false positives, and therefore would need to be replaced with a more capable and reliable sensor. The R&D cost to replace the sensor and correct the ramp navigation problem is estimated at $35 million, and unit production cost is estimated at $25,000. Operations & Support (O&S) costs are expected to be $3,500 per unit, per year. The team estimates the integrated system could be ready for production 34 months after ADE-2A. ZeppelinBot The ZeppelinBot is an experimental, remote-controlled zeppelin developed in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) robotics lab. Preliminary discussions with MIT have been very favorable, as the zeppelin has no problems with terrain and can reach targets higher off the ground than conventional ground vehicles. Though the ZeppelinBot is an early prototype, MIT is confident that they can develop a zeppelin that is small enough to easily maneuver in tight spaces and strong enough to carry the sensors and other necessary equipment. R&D cost is estimated at $48 million, with a unit production cost of $10,000. Operations & Support (O&S) costs are expected to be $3,000 per unit, per year. The team estimates the system could be ready for production 36 months after ADE-2A. CHEM-Bot Resource Requirements The CHEM-Bot Program's AoA study team is nearing the completion of its analysis and preparing to report its findings. CBP needs to begin fielding CHEM-Bot systems to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) within three years of ADE-2A, which is scheduled 15 months from today. Initially, three CHEM-Bot systems will be fielded at a location to be determined, along with the trained and equipped personnel needed to operate and maintain those systems. Ultimately, five hundred CHEM-bot systems will be deployed at seaports along both coasts. CHEM-Bot is considered an "urgent need," and funds are being reprogrammed from the Rapidly Deployable Chemical Defense System (RDCDS) program to get CHEM-Bot off the ground. The Initial Government Cost Estimate (IGCE): R&D $15 million Procurement $20 million (500 systems) Operations & Support $35 million (10 years) We now have enough information to compare the feasible alternatives and identify our preferred solution.

53 Lesson Summary Review the key concepts introduced in this lesson. The purpose of the Analyze/Select Phase is to identify the optimal solution to meet the user requirements and plan for the Obtain Phase and beyond. The critical groundwork laid in this phase will determine whether the program succeeds or fails. The key activities of the Analyze/Select phase are: Identify the operational requirements Analyze the alternatives Identify the resource requirements The key products and documents associated with the Analyze/Select phase: Concept of Operations (CONOPS) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) / Alternatives Analysis (AA) Integrated Logistics Support Plan (ILSP) Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCE) Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) (Draft) Acquisition Plan (AP) You have reached the end of. To continue, select the next lesson from the Table of Contents. To print this lesson, select print. page 32 of 32