RAPID ROBOTIC REQUIREMENT RELAY
partners to build their own teams, conduct their own market research and contem- plate how they might design their virtual prototypes before receiving an official set of requirements, in an effort to move toward proposal development.
The Ground Vehicle Systems Center continued to carry the baton, analyzing the schedule and requirements, and identi- fying the expertise required to expand the internal team for the final sprint toward solicitation release. It was now time for the contracting experts to join the ongo- ing race.
BRINGING INDUSTRY IN To do so, the team released the draft requirements for both the light- and medium-robotic combat vehicle variants for final review and comment in May 2019. Te team considered all feedback received and finalized the requirements in June 2019, when it initiated the first stage of the other-transaction agreement solicitation process, which was a request for white papers. Industry then had one month to provide a white paper address- ing an overview and technical approach of their proposed robotic combat vehicle platform, addressing such factors as sched- ule, vendor capability, safety and vehicle performance. After an initial read, the team provided the offerors with specific feedback and requests for further infor- mation. Te offerors then had one week to update their white papers.
In July 2019, our team scheduled oral reviews for every vendor who submitted a white paper. During this time, offerors had an opportunity to present their proposed concept, clarify their technical approach and address questions to the government panel of experts. Offerors had one week to finalize their white paper before resubmit- ting it to the government for evaluation.
Te team then invited the most highly qualified offerors from the white paper phase to participate in the second phase of the evaluation— the request for prototype proposal. Similar to the first round, indus- try had an opportunity to update their proposals after an initial feedback round, before locking them for the final submis- sion. Te government team reviewed all final submissions before recommending the best proposal from this reduced pool to the selecting official in August 2019.
Te team provided industry with a list of equipment furnished by the government, to decrease schedule risk. Tis equipment, such as lethality systems and autonomy systems, had previously undergone test- ing at the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Center and could minimize both the time and risk associated with government safety certification. Te robotic combat vehicle’s radio was the most critical component of this equipment list. In a separate endeavor, our teammates at the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command C5ISR Center conducted a thorough, hands-on market research initiative result- ing in the selection of a specific radio for use during the robotic combat vehicle experiments, based on the demonstrated performance of 10 different radio solu- tions. Tis approach helped stabilize the potential price disparity between vendors’ proposed vehicles by holding this capabil- ity constant among all offerors.
CONCLUSION Currently, industry is running with the baton. Looking back on the miles behind us, we can see that in less than 18 months, the Robotic Combat Vehicle team found the best technology that enabled industry to provide platforms that are, in essence, purpose-built, as opposed to the off-the- shelf modified surrogates we anticipated receiving. Tese platforms, which will be used for the next live experiment, exceeded
50 Army AL&T Magazine Summer 2020
our expectations. Our contracting team- mates managed to take a spreadsheet of desired requirements and transform them into signed agreements within eight months.
The race is far from over and more competitions will occur in the future; but regardless of new challenges, both known and unknown, our team will continue to pass the baton back and forth until it crosses the finish line—which is providing the American Soldier with the best equip- ment as quickly as possible.
For more information, contact the NGCV- CFT at
usarmy.detroit.ccdc-gvsc.
mbx.ngcv-cft@
mail.mil.
COREY RICHARDS works as an acquisition analyst and contracting adviser to Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of NGCV-CFT. She provides guidance on requirements
development, regulatory
compliance and competition strategies to ensure that stakeholder decisions are synchronized with Army modernization priorities and objectives. She holds an MBA from Walsh College and a B.S. in general management from Oakland University. Additionally, she is Level III certified in contracting and is finalizing her Level III certification for program management.
MAJ. CORY WALLACE is the robotic combat vehicle requirements lead for the NGCV-CFT in Warren, Michigan. He earned an M.A. in English language and literature from the University of Washington and an M.S. in supply chain management and logistics from the University of Kansas. He commissioned as an armor second lieu- tenant after graduating from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 2004.
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 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172
