IN ADDITION TO REDUCING PERFORMANCE RISK THROUGH WELL-DEFINED REQUIREMENTS, THE TEAM IMPLEMENTED BOTH FIRST ARTICLE TESTING AND FIRST ARTICLE CONFIRMATORY TESTING IN THE INSPECTION-AND-ACCEPTANCE PORTION OF THE CONTRACT.
Te redesigned titanium firing platform will be cast as a one-piece molded sys- tem, thereby eliminating multiple parts and fasteners while still serving the same purpose as the original platform. Another added benefit of the titanium platform is a reduction in weight; it is 30 pounds lighter than the legacy platform. It also incorporates new carrying handle geometries to increase robustness and carrying comfort. Te legacy platform’s handle holes had sharp edges and often caused strain on the users’ hands dur- ing emplacement and displacement. Te new design recognizes human factors and ergonomics. Te new handles have a much larger, smoother surface to help reduce strain.
Although the titanium platform costs slightly more than the legacy platforms— roughly 7 percent more per unit—a greatly reduced logistics footprint miti- gates the constant repair and replacement of legacy platforms, resulting in a sig- nificant increase in mission readiness and availability.
CONTRACTING TOOLS PM TAS awarded the SLOS and the titanium platform base contracts in
FY14 as five-year, indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contracts with firm, fixed-price (FFP) delivery orders. Design West Technologies Inc. of Tustin, CA, is the prime contractor for the SLOS, and Alcoa Howmet of Hampton, VA, is the prime contractor for the titanium firing platform. Te ability of the PM TAS/ ARDEC team to identify and mitigate performance risk early on by clearly articulating the contract specifications and thoroughly defining requirements has significantly reduced the overall risk to both the government and the prime contractors. Tese initiatives in turn pro- moted effective competition, allowing the government to obtain the goal of best value during the source selection process.
An example of how the team reduced technical and performance risk that the prime contractor might have incurred with the FFP contract is through the product technical data package (TDP) and the statement of work (SOW). Before the release of the request for pro- posals, PM TAS and ARDEC engineers tailored a TDP and SOW for the SLOS and the titanium platform. Te TDP and SOW communicated a clear and complete description of the requirements
SIMPLER, LIGHTER, EASIER TO HANDLE The redesigned, titanium firing platform is a one-piece molded system, compared with the legacy aluminum and steel, multipiece assem- bly consisting of approximately 200 fasteners with significant welding. An added benefit of the titanium platform: It is 30 pounds lighter than the legacy platform. It also incorporates new carrying handle geometries to increase ro- bustness and carrying comfort. (Photo courtesy of MAJ Wade Perdue, PM TAS)
IMPROVED FIRING PLATFORM This design is a one-for-one swap with the legacy platform. Interconnected ribs replace the spikes found on the legacy platform, increasing the platform strength and prevent- ing excessive platform deformation. Holes are added to the new platform shroud, which im- proves removal from certain types of soil and shortens displacement times. (Photo courtesy of MAJ Wade Perdue, PM TAS)
ASC.ARMY.MIL
65
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
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 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161
