SHIFT LEFT
PM AMPV’s 2016 briefing on the subject gave rise to a white paper, coordinated between the Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS), the PM’s parent organization, and ATEC and in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation. Te white paper explored approaches, guide- lines, procedures and other considerations that would promote the acceptance of contractor test data to support ATEC eval- uation efforts.
Contractor developmental and reliability testing became part of the T&E program for the AMPV in its approved milestone B test and evaluation master plan. BAE Systems developed a detailed plan for its testing, which addressed design, engi- neering and production of the AMPV. Te contractor test, conducted at the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center at Aber- deen Proving Ground, Maryland, was a two- to three-month test for each vehi- cle variant to “shake them down” and discover any design, quality and manu- facturing issues early in the program. Te contractor test design was to use government test facilities and govern- ment testers. It followed internationally accepted test operating procedures and the AMPV system’s operational mode summary and mission profile.
The operational mode summary and mission profile describe the test condi- tions in which the vehicle is to operate and the amount of time that critical pieces of equipment are operational during the mission. For example, the AMPV general purpose vehicle must operate in condi- tions comprising 34 percent primary road surfaces, 38 percent secondary and 28 percent cross-country and hilly cross- country road surfaces. In a given combat day, the vehicle’s mission command equip- ment will operate for 22 hours, its primary
112 Army AL&T Magazine
weapon will fire 387 rounds and its engine operate for 21 hours.
Combining this detailed information on operations tempo with the use of government test facilities, testers and test procedures has enabled the contractor to support the design and development of the
PM and ATEC the opportunity to review and comment on the contractor test plan so that they can shape it to fulfill the eval- uation needs of the T&E community. Te contractor wants to ensure that its equip- ment meets established performance specifications. Te evaluator needs this verification to be performed a certain way for statistical validity.
In short, bad
news does not get better with time. It is always best to test in a robust, realistic way to identify failures early.
Tere are additional conditions to be set in ATEC’s system evaluation plan as well, namely the T&E planning, execu- tion and reporting guidelines to follow in order for ATEC to accept any program data provided by a contractor. For AMPV, this data covered primarily the areas of automotive performance, suitability and survivability, as the system has no offen- sive weapons.
Te test planning also has to address where and how the testing is to be performed, under what conditions and for what dura- tion (as described in the operational mode summary and mission profile), and how the data is to be collected and reported, among other factors. (See “Clear and Common Expectations,” Page 113.)
system. For the government, it provides the opportunity to use contractor test data to augment planned government testing, thus enhancing sample size, allowing for longer testing and broadening perfor- mance measurements.
A WIN-WIN EQUATION It is essential to the success of test plan- ning using this expanded approach to create advantageous conditions for both the contractor and the government. Tis calls for contractually providing both the
October-December 2018
Presenting, addressing and approving the concept of the government using contrac- tor data in the program’s approved test and evaluation master plan allows the neces- sary acceptance by T&E stakeholders. For developmental testing, the stake- holders are the PM, the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation, the Department of the Army, the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of the Army for Test and Evaluation and ATEC.
Te contractor test planning must address issues identified in ATEC’s system eval- uation plan to justify reducing the government’s testing.
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
