Defense acquisition process
The acquisition process is among the primary processes that constitute the defense acquisition system. It is mandated by principles and policies put in place by the Department of Defense (DOD) which offers directives to that effect. The process is event based since any program has to undergo a number of processes from the time of conception to the time of actualization. In essence, an acquisition program is defined by the Department of Defense as an effort initiated and funded with the primary aim of providing improved weapon and/or information systems that respond to the needs of the U.S Armed Forces (Brown, 2010). The weapon system being reviewed is the Precision Guidance Kit (PGK). The PGK combines the synergies of a fuze and a GPS guidance kit. The aim of the PGK is to improve the ballistic accuracy of the U.S Army which initiated the process in a bid to enhance the capabilities of forces that are deployed.
It is important to have a background look at the PGK, the justification for the weapon system, and an overview of the phases of the acquisition process as provided for by the Department of Defense directives. The main contractor of the PGK is Alliant Techsystems Advanced Weapons Division which is based in Plymouth, Minnesota. The contractor was called upon by the U.S Army pursuant to an acquisition process to develop the kit. The process arose as a result of the need to acquire ballistic capabilities that provide a high level of objective and threshold accuracy for a 155 mm explosive projectile. During the course of the kit’s development, care has been taken that both current and future artillery systems that are digitally wired can be mounted with a PGK. The PGK program was mooted in 2010. The success of the program was to be determined by measuring the extent of the performance during testing in relation to set objectives as directed by the U.S Army and the Program Manager (PM). The objectives included reducing collateral damage and increasing the efficiency of ammunition as well as reducing the logistics associated with the weapon system by raising the number of stowed kills.
The approach taken by the Program Manager (PM) involves a series of steps and processes as determined by the acquisition process. The processes are divided into three main categories namely, pre-systems acquisition, systems acquisition and sustainment with each of the processes being further decomposed. In each of the main categories, there is a decision point, a milestone decision, and a major review. Pre-systems acquisition which begun in 2010 for PGK program involves a materiel analysis solution (Materiel Development Decision) and a Technology, Maturation, and Risk Reduction phase. It is during this stage that the PM is mandated to undertake a cost-benefit analysis, and determination of the reliability of the prototype in relation to a set of key performance indicators contained in the Capability Development Document (CDD). It is in line with the directives of the Department of Defense which lists cost and affordability as one of the major considerations for an acquisition program. It involves an evaluation of the various factors that influence costs as well as determining affordability in relation to the needs of the U.S Army in the case of PGK.
Under the system acquisition phase, Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) take place. This process takes into account increments in capability and factors such as interoperability which precedes the Production and Deployment (PD) stages. During the PD stage, there is a double-pronged effort that involves Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Rate Production and Deployment (FPR & D). Once the Production and Deployment (PD) stages are over, the acquisition process proceeds into Operation and Support during which clients employ the weapon and/or information systems as well as services on the ground. In evaluating the PGK program, the phases of the acquisition process mentioned above will be addressed in relation to the directives of the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense (2004) provides that competition is one of the essential pillars of the acquisition process. The need for competition arises in order to encourage innovation, lower costs, and to enhance quality. Acquisition strategies should, therefore, be geared towards creating a conducive for prospective suppliers by ensuring that there is a high number of suppliers and that all the suppliers that have been pre-qualified have an equal opportunity during the bidding process (Brown, 2010). This principle was applied in picking Alliant Techsystems Advanced Weapons Division as the lead contractor in the acquisition process of the PGK program. The need for competitive bidding in choosing the lead contractor for the PGK program was also meant to ensure that the acquisition process was in compliance with the law. Legal compliance in acquisition of weapon systems ought to adhere to domestic laws and treaties that the U.S is a signatory (Department of Defense, 2004). Domestic laws make it mandatory for competitive bidding during any procurement and acquisition process including Department of Defense weapon systems except under some limited circumstances stated by law.
Alliant Techsystems Advanced Weapons Division was awarded the contract for increment I System Development and Demonstration (SDD) following a competitive procurement process. The Materiel Development Decision which is the initial phase of the acquisition process involves determining capabilities and entrance capabilities for achieving a program milestone. For the case of PGK, the initial requirements were directed requirements from the U.S Army. The requirements encompassed the development of an explosive artillery projectile with a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of at most fifty meters in increment I.
The requirements also mandated the development of future increments that can be compatible with various artillery calibers and cargo projectiles. It is also at this stage that numerous alternatives to the PGK program were evaluated which was meant to optimize technology development so as to fill all gaps as determined from the directed requirements from the army. It is especially the case considering that Department of Defense’s directive places a high priority on its policy pronouncement for considering alternatives which is determined by conducting an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Following a Human Critical Design Review for the PGK program, it achieved its next milestone and proceeded with government, qualified testing.
The Materiel Development Decision (MDD) is succeeded by Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction. The latter stage is aimed at ensuring there is high engineering compatibility as well as developing technology and engineering aspects that may be included in the final weapon system. The stage therefore calls for prototyping and refining of the directed requirements in light of an overview of the program as determined by Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). The prototype for the PGK program was developed by Alliant Techsystems Advanced Weapons Division. It was followed by a Live Fire Test and Evaluation which was conducted at the Yuma Proving Ground. The exercise was meant to assist in the drafting of a Capability Development Document (CDD) and System Requirement Document (SRD) for further consideration before approval. A Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) is developed pursuant to the stated directives of a program.
The PGK program therefore met all the directed requirements after testing as illustrated by its continuation into Production and Deployment stage. Some of the metrics that were evaluated in line with the Test and Evaluation Master Plan include environmental safety (involved firing PGK after conditioning for both hot and cold conditions), vertical gun tests, guided flight tests, and electromagnetic environmental effects. Conditions put under consideration include transport and storage logistics, humidity and temperature, vibration, and a hot and cold meter drop (21.8 meters high).
All reliability, performance, and safety objectives were met following the testing an evaluation of the PGKs. For instance, for all the units of the PGK fired, there was minimal damage to the cover anti-rotating layers in both hot and cold conditions. The Capability Development Document (CDD) was then drafted during this stage after a preliminary design review was undertaken to determine the potential improvements to the program. Some of the opportunities identified with respect to the PGK program include possible further technological additions, ability to initiate IM energetic charge, an optimal size (for easier logistics) as well as being cost effective.
The flexibility and responsiveness to emerging requirements is one of the policy measures put in place by the Department of Defense that a Program Manager (PM) should adhere to during the acquisition process (Brown, 2010). Therefore, just like the PGK program, any defense acquisition program should be tailored to fit into the strategies (both current and future) not just in terms of technology and engineering but also in terms of consistency with the applicable law (Department of Defense, 2004). With regard to responsiveness, weapon and/or information systems and services should be integrated and operationalized within the shortest and most logical time frame. The acquisition process for the PGK program was initiated in 2010 by the U.S Army and had already achieved significant milestones as of 2015 despite some deficiencies in the following stage.
The Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase of the acquisition process is succeeded by the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD). For the PGK program, the army undertook a Limited User Test of the Urgent Materials in 2014. The delay was occasioned by the Capability Development Document (CDD) indicating that the program had some limited deficiencies that needed to be reworked. However, the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) had already indicated that the PGK program had already achieved the primary directed requirements in terms of reducing Circular Error Probable (CEP) and reliability for early use. As such, despite the deficiencies, the Production and Deployment (PD) phase received a milestone achievement from the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA). A number of evaluations take place during this stage such as Integrated Baseline Review (IBR), Critical Design Review (CDR) and a Production Readiness Review (PRR). The Engineering and Manufacturing Process has two main approaches namely, an integrated system design and system capability as well as manufacturing process demonstration both of which were achieved by the PGK program with the production of articles for testing and evaluation.
The PGK program attained another successful milestone when it moved to the Production and Deployment (PD) phase in 2014. Alliant Techsystems Advanced Weapons began Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). The contractor also managed to move the production operations to its production base in Plymouth, Minnesota. Low Rate Initial Production allows the Program Manager to conduct a hazard analysis in order to ensure overall safety of the program. At this point, the end product of the program is as close to that envisaged under the directed requirements.
The actual manufacturing process also makes it possible to determine system issues that might not have been previously discovered. For the case of PGK, the Low Rate Initial Production PGKs produced would have had to undergo further First Article Acceptance Testing (FAAT) in 2015 as a precondition for undertaking full production. Following an Urgent Materiel Release, the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) gave the PGK program a thumbs-up hence the program could then proceed to Full Materiel Release (FMR) which was yet another milestone. Full Rate Production was therefore expected to begin within the third quarter of 2015 ushering in the final phase of the acquisition process, operations and support for the users.
An acquisition program involves an effort initiated and funded with the primary aim of providing improved weapon and/or information systems that respond to the needs of the U.S Armed Forces. It is therefore prudent that an acquisition process takes an approach that seeks to optimize performance and minimize costs. The weapon and/or information system and service need to be delivered promptly to its users hence time is an important attribute of the acquisition process. It is exemplified by the PGK program acquisition process which took a relatively short time frame from the Materiel Solution Analysis in 2010 to the final phase of the Operations and Support in 2015. Ultimately, for a defense acquisition process to be considered successful, it has to attain the initial directed requirements as received from the U.S Armed Forces while providing room for flexibility and responsiveness to new user requirements that might arise while maintaining performance. In this regard, the purpose set out by the Program Manager (PM) of the Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) program, to reduce Circular Error Probable (CEP) by combining the synergies of a fuze and a GPS guidance kit were achieved. It follows the go-ahead given to the program to proceed to the Full Materiel Release (FMR) stage.
References
Brown, B. (2010). Introduction to defense acquisition management. Fort Belvoir, Virginia
Defense acquisition university Press
Defense acquisition university press
