system in which warfighters can have confidence. Lowering unnecessarily high requirements thresholds allows for shorter test events and reduced test costs.
LL_123: Additional scrutiny is warranted when evaluating the key performance parameters (KPPs) during CDD and CPD development to make sure they translate into a relevant operational capability.
Background One Army program found that although a system met all KPPs in the CPD, the capability was not good enough to fos- ter confidence and applicability in an operational environment with Soldier operators. Te technical specifications for the program did not translate into a capa- bility that would be effective on today’s battlefield.
Recommendation Te program office should take every opportunity to challenge requirements to ensure that resources are wisely executed and Soldiers are not burdened with a piece of equipment that does not work as intended. Challenge the requirements document from the initial development, and provide for streamlined modifica- tion of requirements, including KPPs, to ensure that the appropriate capability is delivered in a timely manner. Configura- tion steering boards are an effective means of getting authorization for requirements changes, but changes may be made more efficiently when conducted at the colonel level than at the general officer level.
CONTROLLING REQUIREMENTS CREEP
LL_213: Be sure to include contract language that disincentivizes require- ments and contract-scope growth.
SHOP TALK
Contractors with Raytheon Inc. attach a Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System to an M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle during exercise Combined Resolve III at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany, in October 2014. Joint integration isn’t necessarily just about making sure that systems work together, but also that services work together. (U.S. Army photo by SGT Ian Schell, Viper Combat Camera Team)
Background Requirements growth, as well as growth in contract scope that does not include the addition of formal requirements, has been a problem for many DOD programs.
Recommendation Award fees must disincentivize unilateral interpretation of requirements by the contractor and incentivize the contrac- tor to accept changes to requirements and contract scope only via formal cor- respondence. For example, the following contract language could be used: “Con- tractor ensures that all resource needs are met. No changes in scope occur with- out formal contractual direction from the procuring contracting officer. All potential scope changes are assessed via formalized configuration control man- agement processes. All scope changes
having a cost, schedule or performance impact will be
approved by the gov-
ernment product manager. Contractor exercises sound judgment in resisting dis- ruptive tasking.”
For more information on these and other Army Lessons Learned within the ALLP, go to
https://allp.amsaa.army.mil.
MS. JILL IRACKI is an operations research analyst with the U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. She holds a B.A. in mathematics from Notre Dame of Maryland University and is working toward an M.S. in applied and computational mathematics at Johns Hopkins University. She is Level II certified in engineering.
+
ASC.ARMY.MIL 51
ACQUISITION
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156
