DAU Course Updates
The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) has announced several new and revised DAU courses. Students interested in the offerings may apply in ATRRS Internet Training Application System(AITAS).
ACQ 165 – Defense Acquisition of Services
ACQ 165 is a new distance learning/rolling admission web course. This course is based on DoD Instruction 5000.74, Defense Acquisition of Services, and includes services acquisition
roles and responsibilities; oversight and approval of contracted services portfolios; requirements development, validation and oversight; data collection, reporting and inventory of contracted services; and acquisition considerations for information technology (IT) services, including IT as a service. ACQ 165 is designed for individuals who need to improve their knowledge of developing and defining service requirements, supporting business strategies, coordinating review and approval of services contracts, and effectively managing the resulting contractor performance. The course also may serve as an opportunity for experienced acquisition personnel to improve their understanding of the service acquisition process, approval levels, and reporting requirements. Target audience: All service acquisition team members, including contracting officer representatives, quality assurance reviewers, contracting specialists, as well as those involved in developing and executing performance requirements and business strategies, and assessing contractor provided
BCF 131 – Applied Cost Analysis
This course, which replaces BCF 107, enables students to apply the techniques learned in BCF 130 to develop cost estimates with an emphasis on life cycle cost estimates. Learning methodologies include interactive presentations, group discussions, cost analysis using MS Excel, and case study of an ongoing major defense acquisition program. The course will expose students to current developments in data collection and software cost estimating. The course is in the process of being piloted, and students interested in the pilot offering may apply to offering #001, held Nov. 14-18.
LOG 235 Performance–Based Logistics
This course is being updated, and the student pilot will be conducted online.
USAASC Announces Senior Service College Fellowship Selectees
U.S. ARMY ACQUISITION SUPPORT CENTER (JUNE 20, 2016)
FORT BELVOIR, Va.—Twenty-four civilian acquisition professionals were named as the next Defense Acquisition University— Senior Service College Fellowship (DAU-SSCF) class for 2016–2017 as a result of a review board concluding last month. The board is convened by the U.S. Army Acquisition Support Center (USAASC) and administered by the Office of the Director, Acquisition Career Management, or Army DACM Office. The purpose of the board is to ensure the best qualified civilian applicants from across the defense acquisition workforce are selected for the 10-month education and leader development program.
“The board was very competitive—and that’s a good thing! We’re looking for the best talent in our community to grow and develop our next leaders, and this program is one of our signature leader development opportunities,” said Kristine Faria, an acquisition education and training manager who oversees the program. Some of the commonalities between those who were selected included strong senior rater potential evaluations, or SRPEs; a strong post-utilization statement; and a strong statement of interest from the applicant, according to Faria. “This year’s applicant pool was particularly robust, with many strong applicants and a 25% increase in the number of applications over the previous year,” said Faria.
For the last three years, the number of selected applicants has hovered around 25, with anywhere from 5 to 10 Fellows at each of the three DAU-SSCF locations. The fellowship is conducted by DAU at Huntsville, Alabama; Warren, Michigan; and Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, with the purpose of preparing civilians for senior positions, including product and project managers, program executive officers (PEO), and other key acquisition leader positions.
Along with executive leader courses, the fellowship comes with credit for the DAU program manager course (PMT 401) and the option to obtain a master’s degree. In addition, those enrolled after 2012 also receive Military Education Level 1 (MEL-1) credit, making SSCF the first approved civilian-only
Army senior service college.
The fellowship marked its 10th anniversary this year, graduating more than 200 AAW professionals since its creation in 2006. For eligibility, application requirements and more, go to the DAU-SSCF page at: http://asc.army.mil/web/careerdevelopment/ programs/defense-acquisition-universitysenior- service-college/.
USAASC congratulates the following acquisition professionals for their selection:
• Lareina Adams, PEO Enterprise Information Systems
• Paul Coles II, PEO Combat Support & Combat Service Support
• Stephen Conley, Army Test and Evaluation Command
• Nathaniel Curry, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
• Michael Danhires, PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors
• Brian Debiase, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
• Michael Fraley, U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command
• John Gates, U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command
• Shawn Gresham, PEO Simulation, Training & Instrumentation
• Jerry Harper, PEO Command Control Communications- Tactical
• Daniel Hernandez, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
• Cheryl Hickman, Army Contracting Command
• Angela Jones, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
• Scott Kelley, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command
• Manfred Little II, U.S. Army Special Operations Command
• Kathleen Lytle, PEO Combat Support & Combat Service Support
• Philip Minor, U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
• Graciano Nikolich, PEO Command Control Communications-
• Noel Paschal, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command
• Ruby Price, Headquarters, Army Materiel Command
• Jonathan Reiner, PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors
• James Shillingford, Defense Logistics Agency
• Jennifer Stephenson, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
• Chad Stocker, PEO Ground Combat Systems
Approval of Changes to the Decision Authorities of DoD Components for Acquisition of Services
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, DEFENSE PROCUREMENT &
ACQUISITION POLICY (JULY 5, 2016)
DoD Components Decision Authority for Acquisition of Services shall be designated in accordance with reference (a)’s Table 1 Acquisition of Services Categories by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), who serves as or designates the senior DoD Decision Authority for the acquisition of contracted services for Defense Agencies and other DoD Components outside the Military Departments. Further details can be found within the memorandum.
FROM LEONARDO MANNING, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR CONTRACTING
SBP 120 Pilot (July 7, 2016)
SBP 120, Contract Lifecycle for Small Business Professionals, was piloted from June 20 to July 1, 2016. This new Distance Learning Course is the fourth of nine new small business courses in development for the Small Business Career Field and will be required for Level 1 Certification. There were 34 students in the pilot, not including DAU participants. All pilot participants were able to submit ‘Change Requests’ to help improve the overall function of this brand new course that is scheduled to be deployed in FY17. This course introduces personnel new to the Small Business career field to the basics of federal contracting to include: contract planning, execution, and management. It also identifies where SBPs play a role within the contract lifecycle. Through a series of simulations and examples, SBPs learn how to navigate through the contracting lifecycle by working through different scenarios and providing advice for acquisition teams.
Read more of Manning’s Blog entries at https://dap.dau.mil/training/ cl/blogs/default.aspx .
FROM PATRICK WILLS, DEAN, DEFENSE SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT COLLEGE
Registration Procedures & Instructions for RQM 310– Advanced Concepts and Skills for Requirements Managers (Oct. 26, 2015)
Unlike the many acquisition courses offered at DAU regional campuses, RQM 310 is only offered at the Fort Belvoir, Defense Systems Management College. FY16 course offerings
Most importantly, if you would like to attend the course, you must contact your Requirements Management Certification Training (RMCT) Component Appointed Representative (CAR). Each military service, Defense Agency, and Combatant Command has a CAR responsible for RQM 310
Spotlight on DAU Learning Resources
If you have further questions/concerns, please contact the Requirements Management Certification Training (RMCT) Program Manager: Matthew Ghormley, 703-805-3721 or Matthew.Ghormley@dau.mil.
Read more of Wills’ Blog entries at https://dap.dau.mil/training/cl/ blogs/default.aspx.
FROM BILL KOBREN, DIRECTOR, LOGISTICS & SUSTAINMENT CENTER
Revamped U.S. Army LOGSA Tools Site on DAU LOG CoP (June 14, 2016)
In a blog post last week entitled U.S. Army LOGSA Tools Suite, I mentioned that DAU had established a shortcut link to the LOGSA Logistics & Engineering Center (LEC) Tools Suite at https://acc.dau.mil/logsa-tools. In addition to including each of these tools in the DoD Product Support Analytical Tools Database, DAU also updated its DAU Logistics Community of Practice (LOG CoP) U.S. Army Materiel Command Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA) Tools Suite website with a new, easy-to-read, direct access, icon-based graphic that provides users direct access to all seven of these key Army LOGSA tools at https://dap.dau.mil/training/cl/ blogs/default.aspx.
New GAO Report on Enhanced Product Support Metrics (June 16, 2016)
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a new report on June 9—GAO-16-450, entitled Defense Inventory: Further Analysis and Enhanced Metrics Could Improve Service Supply and Depot Operations—that I would also encourage you to read.
In the report, the GAO indicated that “DoD, DLA, and the Services have some internal efficiency measures, but they generally do not have metrics that would allow for more effective and efficient management of supply and maintenance operations. Specifically, DoD, the Services, and DLA have not adopted metrics on the accuracy of planning factors, such as the accuracy of part lists, or the costs created by backorders” and that “without relevant metrics on cost and planning factors, DoD, DLA, and the Services will be unable to optimize supply and maintenance operations, and may miss opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of depot maintenance.” Two of GAO’s five recommendations specifically addressed nlogistics-related metrics, stating:
“To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of supply and maintenance operations, in accordance with DoD guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop and implement metrics that measure the accuracy of planning factors, such as the schedule, bill of materials, and replacement factors, used for depot maintenance.”
To be able to assess the cost-effectiveness of supply and depot maintenance operations, in accordance with DoD supply chain management guidance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness, in conjunction with the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to take steps to develop and implement metrics, to the extent feasible, to measure and track disruption costs created
by the lack of parts at depot maintenance industrial sites by, for example, establishing a team of supply and depot maintenance experts from DLA and the Services to assess potential data sources, approaches, and methods.”
Several Excellent DAU Cybersecurity Resources (June 20, 2016)
Several interdisciplinary cybersecurity resources are available for the defense acquisition workforce. The first of these learning assets is the Cybersecurity Community of Practice (CoP), available on the DAU Acquisition Community Connection. The second is an article from the May–June 2016 edition of Defense AT&L magazine entitled “Cybersecurity: The Road Ahead for Defense Acquisition.” The third is the new Cybersecurity & Acquisition Lifecycle Integration Tool (CALIT), an excellent resource from our cybersecurity colleagues here at DAU. As the CALIT site indicates, “effective integration of cybersecurity into the DoD acquisition lifecycle encompasses several different processes,” including:
• DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition System
• DoDI 8510.01, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT)
• Cybersecurity Test and Evaluation
• Program Protection
• System Security Engineering (SSE)
Understanding what these processes are and how they interact will lead to better acquisition outcomes. The Cybersecurity & Acquisition Lifecycle Integration Tool (CALIT) provides the user the ability to visualize how these processes work together.” An important side note: because the CALIT is PowerPoint® based, make sure you place the tool in ‘Slide Show’ (Presentation) mode in order to take advantage of its full capabilities. The CALIT site also contains with a short overview video to help get you started.
Updated June 2016 Version of DoD Product Support Manager’s (PSM) Guidebook (June 27, 2016)
The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Materiel Readiness has issued an updated June 2016 version of the DoD Product Support Manager’s Guidebook. The change, which has been posted to the Product Support Manager (PSM) site on the DAU Logistics Community of Practice (LOG CoP), includes the revision of Appendix J “Key References & Resources for the PSM.”
Crosswalking the Integrated Product Support (IPS) Elements with the O&S Cost Categories (July 7, 2016)
Back in March, I shared information on the new DoD Operating & Support (O&S) Cost Management Guidebook issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics & Materiel Readiness (L&MR). For those who have read through this guide, you recognize what an important interdisciplinary resource it is for the life cycle logistics, cost estimating, program management, and systems engineering communities. Among the many key areas it touches on (including excellent and detailed information on O&S Will Cost, O&S Should Cost, Affordability, Product Support Planning, Designing for Supportability, and linkages to Reliability, Availability and Maintainability), one in particular caught my eye and is one you probably will want to take a look at. I’m specifically referring to is Section 188.8.131.52.3 (Mapping the Integrated Product Support [IPS] Elements to the O&S Cost Elements), along with more detailed information in Appendix B (Mapping among IPS Elements, O&S Cost Categories, and Funding Appropriations).
As you craft your product support strategies, identify your funding requirements, conduct your product support business case analyses (BCA), update your Life Cycle Sustainment Plans (LCSP), prepare for an Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA), or simply find yourself wondering how the Cost Analysis & Performance Evaluation (CAPE) O&S Cost categories align to both funding appropriations and IPS Elements, let me encourage you to take another look at this guidebook.
New Funds Management Platinum Card (July 12, 2016)
Our DAU Financial Management colleagues have advised that their highly sought after, highly regarded, highly useful “Funds Management Platinum Card” has been revised. The updated version dated July 2016 is now available. Primary change areas relate to the dates in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Execution (PPBE) process. Let me encourage you to check out this handy learning asset.
Newly Revised Version of LOG 204 Configuration Management Course Now Available (July 23, 2016)
DAU has launched a newly revised version of its LOG 204 Configuration Management distance learning course. This effort culminates a major project that integrated the efforts a multi disciplinary, multi-organizational team of DoD and industry Certified Configuration/Data Managers Subject Matter Experts (SME) from across the Program Management, Systems Engineering, and Life Cycle Logistics career fields. The revision team, led by DAU faculty and supported by Service subject matter experts, leveraged their unique knowledge of the latest configuration management standard, SAE-EIA-649-1, Configuration Management Requirements for Defense Contracts and their insights as members on the SAE G-33 Configuration Management Committee to ensure the revised LOG 204 reflected current DoD policy and guidance in the areas of Better Buying Power, Modular Open Systems Approaches, Intellectual Property, and Value Engineering. The revised LOG 204 distance learning course, which is one of the Life Cycle Logistics DAWIA Level II certification ‘pick list’ course options, features enhanced interactivity, micro-videos, and other changes that improve the student learning experience. The result is students from multiple functional communities have access to the most current information on this important acquisition topic.
New ACQ 165 Defense Acquisition of Services Training Course Now Available (Aug. 2, 2016)
Nearly concurrently with the launch of our newly revised version of LOG 204 Configuration Management course, the much-anticipated new ACQ 165 Defense Acquisition of Services course also launched late last month as well. This new distance learning course is now available for registration by anyone with an interest or involvement in DoD services acquisition.
The new ACQ 165 training course is largely based on the recently released DoD Instruction 5000.74, Defense Acquisition of Services. Major course topics include: services acquisition roles and responsibilities; oversight and approval of contracted services portfolios; requirements development, validation and oversight; data collection, reporting and inventory of contracted services; and acquisition considerations for information technology (IT) services (including
IT as-a-service). ACQ 165 is designed for individuals who need to improve their knowledge of developing and defining service requirements, supporting business strategies, coordinating review and approval of services contracts, and effectively managing the resulting contractor performance.
However, this course may also serve as an opportunity for experienced acquisition personnel to improve their understanding of the Service acquisition process, approval levels, and reporting requirements. A wide variety of representatives from the OSD Staff, each of the military departments, several DoD agencies, and DAU faculty participated in the course pilot and contributed to course development. Initial feedback has been very positive and DAU anticipates substantial demand as more organizations become aware of the new DoDI 5000.74, as well as the increased emphasis on visibility of services acquisitions, which comprise more than half of the annual DoD contract expenditures. Development of this course also directly supports the Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative of “Improve Tradecraft in Acquisition of Services.”
While not a DAWIA certification requirement for the life cycle logistics workforce, let me encourage workforce members engaged or interested in the acquisition of services to consider taking this course. I took this course as a student as part of the pilot earlier this summer, and found it to be both engaging and informative—well worth the time. Read more of Kobren’s Blog entries at https://dap.dau.mil/training/cl/ blogs/default.aspx.
FROM FRED SCHLICH, PROFESSOR, OVERHEAD MANAGEMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS
Building and Using Indirect Rates – Sequencing of Allocation and Allowability Determination (June 8, 2016) Two important concepts that guide the federal government cost accounting are allocation and allowability. Allocation is a fundamental aspect of basic managerial accounting; cost allowability is a unique government requirement contractors should be aware of when working on government contracts that require compliance with FAR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures. A fundamental principle in managerial or cost accounting is the assignment of all mcosts to a cost objective. In the commercial world, a cost objective may be a product, project, customer, region, or department. Businesses establish processes to associate costs with particular product lines, service offerings, or customer delivery units to better inform decisions such as allocation of resources, projected profitability, and return on investment.
Federal contractors relate expenses to cost objectives, which may include projects, secondary cost pools, or in the case of final cost objectives, a contract. In addition to the benefits cost allocation offers the commercial contractor, for government contractors this is also how the government will reimburse expended funds on cost reimbursable contracts. Some costs are directly related to individual contracts; for these costs, allocation is direct to individual contracts (e.g., direct materials, ODCs). Others costs benefit multiple contracts; contractors establish methodologies to determine relationships between indirect costs and bases of allocation (e.g., labor overhead, G&A expense).
These companywide causal-beneficial relationships are expressed as indirect cost rates and are applied in the same way to each and all contracts within the company (or company accounting unit). In many circumstances, the government screens costs for allowability prior to including them in negotiated contract prices or estimates, and always when reimbursing costs either as billings or final settlements on cost reimbursement type contracts. Indirect costs are included in all testing for allowability. In building indirect cost rates, the proper sequencing is to allocate first, then determine the appropriate allowability cost treatment. The primary allocation decision is to identify costs as either direct only or indirect only, and consistently follow this categorization. Only indirect costs will be pooled for proportional allocation. When pooled, indirect costs can be screened for allowability, i.e., unallowable indirect costs are excluded from the pool. For rate building purposes, direct costs are used as part of the base to determine indirect cost rates. From this perspective direct costs are not being used per se as costs, but as part of the indirect cost allocation methodology and should be included in the base, including those which as costs would be deemed unallowable. Hence, the need to allocate first and then make a treatment decision on allowability thereafter. In short, for purposes of establishing an indirect rate, unallowable pool costs are excluded from the pool, and unallowable base costs are included in the base.
In applying indirect cost rates, allowability issues should be resolved before performing allocation techniques. When negotiating an individual contract action using cost analysis or
determining allowability required by contract clause, first all unallowable costs should be identified and excluded as appropriate. The contractor may not bill these unallowable pool or base costs to the contract. Second, companywide rates are applied resulting in an appropriate allocation of the contractor’s indirect costs to each contract. Rates should be applied using a basis of allocation that contains no unallowable costs.
A six-step process for determining allowability and allocability when calculating indirect cost rates was established in Rice v. Martin Marietta. Read more of Schlich’s Blog entries at https://dap.dau.mil/training/cl/ blogs/default.aspx.
FROM FRANK KENLON, PROFESSOR OF INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT
Joint Strike Fighter – Construction Begins (July 6, 2016)
In my last blog on this subject, “JSF—DoD’s Largest International
Acquisition Program—Genesis,” we explored how the program was conceived and created by DoD and Air Force leaders in the early-to-mid 1990s as an international cooperative program. This key principle became part of the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program’s original
“Be the Model Acquisition Program for Joint Service and International Cooperation; Develop and Produce a Family of Affordable Multi-Mission Fighter Aircraft Using Matured/ Demonstrated 21st Century Technology and Sustain it Worldwide.”
We then characterized the three types of DoD government and defense industry personnel that create, nurture, and implement successful DoD acquisition programs as:
• Visionaries and Architects
Most of you know that major DoD acquisition programs take decades to take shape—akin to the building of a gothic cathedral or the pyramids. Once the original JAST visionaries and the main architect—Air Force Lt. Gen. George Muellner—moved on to other positions, the responsibility for turning the initial vision into reality fell to the “Builders.” As the program matured, DoD decided to rename the program “Joint Strike Fighter” (JSF) in August 1995. This blog focuses on the JSF Concept Demonstration Phase (CDP) international cooperative activities that shaped the multibillion dollar JSF international partnership and foreign sales arrangements we have today.
JSF CDP Overview
The JSF CDP phase competition eventually led to selection of Boeing and Lockheed Martin contractor teams. Each team developed and flew a concept demonstration aircraft (designated X-32 and X-35, respectively) while being evaluated by a combined Air Force/Navy/Marine Corps government team. DoD’s acquisition strategy envisioned selection of a single System Development and Demonstration (SDD)
phase prime contractor that would develop three variants— Conventional Take-Off and Landing (CTOL – USAF), Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL – USMC), and Carrier Landing (CV – USN)—to achieve maximum commonality and economies of scale. The CTOL variant would eventually replace the USAF F-16, the STOVL variant the USMC’s AV-8B, and the CV variant the Navy’s F/A-18s.
JSF CDP International Cooperation Objectives
In mid-1994, while the program was still named JAST, Muellner and Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Noel Longuemare asked DoD’s international cooperation experts to develop a strategy that would allow nations to join the JSF CDP phase as cooperative partners. To say this was a precedent-setting decision would be a huge understatement. DoD had never encouraged partner nations to join a major DoD tactical aircraft program this early in development before, let alone one designed with stealth characteristics from its inception. After some dialog within the Pentagon, top DoD leadership (including the Air Force and Navy/Marine Corps) decided to try to bring partner nations onboard based on the following principles:
• JSF would be a DoD-run program with “junior partner” participation by other nations (i.e., not at all like Eurofighter or other pan-European cooperative development programs).
• The JSF CDP program schedule was already established and couldn’t be changed. As a result, prospective JSF partner nations would have to be able to join in a flexible manner. This meant that separate bilateral (or smaller multilateral) international agreements (based on U.S. and partner laws) would have to be used rather than a single overarching multilateral agreement (the “traditional” cooperative program approach).
• DoD would have to be willing to fund the entire cost of CDP in hopes that—as partner nations joined and funded their “fair share’ of the CDP phase efforts—DoD’s funding requirements would diminish as more partners joined. The other key piece of DoD leadership guidance (from the SecDef level) specified that the U.K. should be offered a significant role as the primary JSF partner—with a target contribution level of $200 million (calculated in 1995) against
the overall estimated CDP cost of $2 billion—including participation in the CDP contract source selection process. This meant the U.K. would have a significant stake in the program
as a 10 percent partner, hopefully encouraging them to eventually replace their AV-8B Harriers with JSF STOVLs (which was also the USMC’s plan).
JSF CDP International Agreement Strategy
The International Cooperation (IC) “Builders”—led by Al Volkman in the USD(AT&L)’s International Cooperation (IC) office, Jon Schreiber in JSF’s International Directorate (ID), and the Navy International Program Office’s International Agreement staff (where I worked at the time)—were given a
few months by DoD and JSF leadership to develop a JSF CDP agreement strategy that would achieve the desired outcome. Fortunately, the DoD and JSF leadership gave us performance objectives, rather than try to tell us how to do it (an all too common problem in the Pentagon).
This is the framework we developed by the fall of 1994 (original plan follows): CDP Phase (1997-2001): Four Levels
• Collaborative (U.K. at $200M)
• Associate (~$50M)
• Informed (~$10M)
• Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Customer Ground Rules
• Open Invitation (quite controversial … but this is what DoD leaders wanted)
• Tech Security and Foreign Disclosure (TSFD) constraints specified by USG/DoD
Since no partner nation would ever join as a cooperative partner without understanding the future path to complete JSF development and produce/field CTOL STOVL, or CV variant it needed, the rest of the framework.
System Development and Demonstration (SDD) Phase (2001-2012): Partner Levels
• Three financial contribution levels ($ amount TBD)
• By DoD invitation only
• Greater level of technology security and foreign disclosure
(TSFD) access in CDP IA partnership arrangements FMS Customer
• DoD case-by-case decision
• Standard FMS Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA)
• Standard TSFD constraints Production Phase (2008-2030)
• International Agreement for Cooperative Production
• FMS LOA acquisition arrangements
• Direct Commercial Sales (maybe …)
The Builders Get to Work
A new USD(AT&L), Paul Kaminski, arrived in October 1994. He was a strong proponent of international cooperation, as was then-DepSecDef John Deutch, so they tasked the IC Builders to implement this plan. By early 1995, they had personally engaged their U.K. counterparts, which led to
an agreement in principle that the U.K. would join the CDP phase as a partner at the $200 million level. Kaminski sent out letters to the rest of his National Armaments Director (NAD) counterparts around the world encouraging them to join as CDP phase partners during this timeframe as well. By mid-1995, the IC Builder team was like a “dog that caught a firetruck” it had decided to chase. While the team was organizing the U.S.-U.K. CDP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiations, it was being inundated by a flurry of responses from the other nations’ NADs asking for information on the potential benefits of CDP partnership. The fact that the U.S.-U.K. MOU negotiations were beginning—while other nations were still in the “window shopping” phase— meant that the CDP phase arrangements with partner nations would have to be put in place using a “hub and spoke” methodology, with the U.S. as the “hub” and each partner nation as a “spoke.” This was an unprecedented approach for a major cooperative development program, but it was the only way to build the foundation of what would eventually be a nine-nation JSF cooperative partnership.
Building Blocks Are Put in Place
The IC Builders completed negotiations with their U.K. counterparts in near record time, and the U.S.-U.K. JAST Framework MOU and CDP Project Arrangement were signed by both nations in December 1995. As envisioned, the U.K. became a 10 percent partner in the entire scope of the JSF CDP phase, including participation in the JSF CDP evaluations of the X-32 and X-35, plus the source selection process. Once this was accomplished, the IC Builders focused on establishing additional MOUs with other partner nations in areas of specific interest:
• Denmark, Netherlands, and Norway (who had formed an F-16 Multinational Fighter Program arrangement with the U.S. in 1975) decided to band together as “Associate Partners”—each contributing $10 million for a total of $30 million—to negotiate and sign a JSF Requirements Spotlight on DAU Learning Resources Defense AT&L: September-October 2016 8 Validation Project Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in September 1997.
• Canada, an F-18 owner, decided to join JSF CDP as an “Informed Partner” via a Preferred Weapons System Concept (PWSC) Refinement Project MOU signed in January 1998.
• Italy, an AV-8B Harrier II plus owner, also became a JSF Informed Partner through signature of an Agreement for the JSF STOVL Ship Integration Risk Mitigation and CTOL/ STOVL Operational Assessment Project in December 1998.
As a result of the challenges putting these cooperative agreements in place, and various other USG/DoD concerns, DoD leadership decided to wait until the SDD phase to establish initial FMS customer arrangements. CDP International Partnership Efforts Using this “hub and spoke” set of cooperative agreements, the U.K. participated in all aspects of CDP while the other five partner nations—through their international agreements with the U.S.—participated in specific areas of the flight demonstration and evaluation activities conducted between 1997 and 2001 under the leadership of JSF Program Directors Navy Rear Adm. Craig Steidle, Air Force Maj. Gen. Leslie Kenne and Marine Maj. Gen. Mike Hough. USD(AT&L) Under Secretaries Paul Kaminski and Jacques Gansler strongly supported JSF’s cooperative program efforts during this period as well. The CDP efforts were completed
on schedule within the projected budget of $2 billion, setting the stage for selection of JSF System Demonstration and Development (SDD) air system and engine prime contractors in October 2001.
Benefits and Challenges
From a U.S. and partner nation perspective, the approach used during CDP—which was a radical departure from all previous cooperative development agreements—provided each nation with minimal partnership risks:
• The U.S. was able to run CDP efforts without “partner interference” (a major DoD concern based on previous experience in other cooperative agreements).
• Except for the U.K—which made a conscious decision to join the U.S. at the beginning of CDP at a $200 million contribution level—the other partner nations were able to join based on a scope and schedule of their choosing at minimal expense ($10 million each).
• DoD used the $250 million contributed by the various partner nations to expand the scope of the CDP effort in areas of mutual interest.
• The web of government-to-government cooperation encouraged all of the partner nations’ industries to establish “best value” teaming arrangements at the inception of the program that would provide mutual benefits.
• All partner nations had the choice of either continuing JSF cooperation after the SDD prime contractor selection through some type of follow-on agreement(s), or departing the program without penalty.
By contrast, the challenges were mainly “operational” in nature at the program office level. The U.S., as the JSF “hub” nation, had to manage four separate cooperative agreement relationships in parallel and ensure each partner nation received its “fair share” of CDP phase results (no more, no less) in accordance with the international agreement it had signed. From a DoD and partner leadership perspective this was easy since—as noted in the adage “nothing is impossible if someone else has to do it”—the JSF Program Office and Navy/Air Force international offices had to figure out a way to keep everyone happy. Fortunately, based on a combination of resourcefulness, creativity, flexibility, and good will among the various partner nations, it all worked out. CDP ended on a high note with all seven nations—plus two more in the wings, Australia and Turkey—willing to join as SDD partners.
Spoiler Alert: The JSF SDD phase didn’t go nearly as smoothly, but that’s the subject of a future blog, Read more of Kenlon’s Blog entries at https://dap.dau.mil/training/cl/blogs/default.aspx.