PINPOINT ACCURACY
Lt. Col. Christopher Anderson, product manager for fire support command and control, discusses the new Precision Fires- Dismounted (PF-D) system during a visit from Steffanie B. Easter, acting assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, May 11. The new PF-D system has greatly expanded the ability of forward observers to conduct completely digital calls for fire, providing field artillery Soldiers with precise target coordinates. (U.S. Army photo by Dan Lafontaine, PEO C3T Public Affairs)
government publicized the effort with two advanced planning briefings to industry. Te extra steps stoked industry interest and provided detailed informa- tion about AFATDS requirements and government goals that better informed innovative proposal development.
With extra time and additional oppor- tunities to learn about the government’s needs, industry was able to invest more time and effort in responding to the AFATDS 7.0 RFP, and the govern- ment was able to capitalize on industry’s pre-award innovation.
CRACKING OPEN THE CODE PM MC took a significant step to spur industry innovation by releasing the lat- est version of the government-owned AFATDS source code to all potential offerors with the first RFI. Releasing the code was critical to ensure a level playing field among industry after more than 30 years of a single AFATDS developer.
Tis release of government intellectual property was a sharp departure from contracting norms. However, it allowed industry to become familiar with the code base it would be charged with modernizing. Further, because the gov- ernment allowed industry to retain the
code for eight months before initial pro- posals, industry was able to experiment with multiple modernization approaches and define modernization risk. Tis allowed offerors to weigh modernization approaches and choose the lowest-risk solution based upon their unique capa- bilities—a significant benefit to the government because it allowed for the identification and the mitigation of risk before actual contract execution.
As the source code was released to poten- tial vendors, PM MC took the unique step of partnering with academia to review the AFATDS code to ensure it could be modernized efficiently. Tis partnership with computer science experts at the University of Texas (UT) was initiated because the Army lacked the internal expertise to effectively evaluate whether the source code could be successfully upgraded. PM MC contacted the Army Fires Center of Excellence at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, which recommended UT because of an existing relationship with the university. UT experts analyzed the code and outlined viable moderniza- tion options given the state of the code and the Army’s requirements and goals. Additionally, UT provided a number of risk-mitigation strategies.
Te senior computer scientist who per- formed the analysis also supported the source selection board during proposal review and has been retained to provide ongoing support as the Army executes the contract. Te UT expert provided advisory services on the feasibility of approaches, the current state of the code base and the overarching goals of mod- ernization during the proposal
review
process. Tose contributions ultimately helped the government understand what was technically feasible and gave the government the foundation needed to evaluate industry proposals and determine whether industry innovation successfully balanced cost, schedule and performance risks.
BRINGING BEST PRACTICES Most
significantly, the Army adapted
best practices from commercial IT and software and employed a number of innovative methods in requesting poten- tial solutions from offerors.
First, the Army asked for a capabil-
ity without directing how to achieve it, releasing a statement of objectives that only outlined the overarching modern- ization goals. Tis statement of objectives was in contrast to typical RFPs, in which the government outlines specifically what
ASC.ARMY.MIL 93
CONTRACTING
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
