Building a Competitive Proposal and

the U.S. Navy Service Selection Process

Navy JCTD Workshop

OPNAV N8F S&T(Science & Technology Branch)

2

Building A Competitive Proposal

• Meet the Need• Complement vs. Duplicate• Work the Processes and

People• Obtain Resource Sponsor

(RS) support• Collaborate• Be Joint

Valid RequirementsNot DuplicativeTechnologyProgrammaticsFundingMeet JCTD Goals

- 1 to 3 year Program- Leave-behind with COCOM Sponsor- Meet Jointness criteria- Transition

How:Must Haves:

3

Meet the Need

• Integrated Priority Lists (IPL - from CoComs & JCS/J8)

• Urgent Needs Statements (UNS - from CoComs)

• Programs of Record (POR - emerging or unmet

capability requirements from Acquisition Programs)

• Capability Gaps (from Services)

• Most Pressing Military Issues (MPMI -from JCS)

US Fleet Forces will address this further US Fleet Forces will address this further

4

Compliment vs. Duplicate

• Know the Acquisition Community• Know the Programs of Record (PoRs)• Show where the effort fits in the existing

Programmatic Architecture• Identify what capabilities will be met that

existing and planned systems will not• Convince the PoR Managers and their

Resource Sponsors of the value

5

Processes and People

• Acquisition Process• Technology Transition Processes

– JCTD– RTT, RDD, INP, TIPS, FNC– TTI, DAC, FCT– Others

• People– Team– Time dependencies

6

Navy Resource Sponsor Support

• OPNAV

• Funding

OPNAV Resource Sponsors are responsible for the Navy’s Investment Strategy

OPNAV Resource Sponsors are responsible for the Navy’s Investment Strategy

( Not ONR, PEO, PMA, PMW, etc,)

(Talk and emails of support do not suffice)

7

Collaborate – Be Joint

• Services• Agencies• Coalition Partners

Joint• Warfare Centers• Industry• Academia• Everyone

Collaborate

Each JCTD must have at least one COCOM SponsorEach JCTD must have at least one COCOM SponsorThe more COCOM Sponsors the betterThe more COCOM Sponsors the better

8

JCTD Processes

OSD Services

COCOMs

JCB/JROC

OSD executes AC/JCTD program, COCOM is the customer, Services provide funds

OSD executes AC/JCTD program, COCOM is the customer, Services provide funds

9

Navy JCTD Roles

• OSD controls the process– Dr. Perkins, OSD (Complex Systems)

• JROC validates the requirements for OSD JCTD selections • OPNAV is the Resource Sponsor

– NXX codes offset existing programs to fund JCTDs

• ASN (RDA) is Navy lead for JCTDs– Endorses Navy-led JCTD selections– Monitors executing JCTDs

• ONR is executive agent for JCTDs– CNR validates candidates for technology readiness

• USFFC and NWDC coordinate CONOPS and Sea Trial efforts

N8F S&T is OPNAV lead for JCTDsN8F S&T is OPNAV lead for JCTDs

10

JANOCT NOV DEC FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

OSD(SelectionDecision)

OSD CRB

FCB/JCB/JROC

USN/USMCPrioritization

ASN-RDA Ranking Ltr to OSD

ACCEPTDEFER

ACCEPT

ERG

/ER

G W

G

JCTD WG &RO/SME Review/Mentoring

ERG

REJECT

Naval JCTD Development/Selection Process

REJECT

Strongest proposals

submitted to OSD

JCTD WG & RO/SMEWhite

Paper ReviewAug-Dec

IPR @ ONRIPR

@ ONR

11

JANOCT NOV DEC FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP

NavyExecution

Review

NavyExecution

Review

JCTD Naval Execution & Transition

ERG

ERG

Monthly Services Meeting (USN, USMC, USAF, USA)

10 COCOM JCTD/S&T Reviews

StatusReports

StatusReports

TRBTRB

(If required)

Realignment DecisionsTOG(status)

• Feedback to DUSD AS&C

• Interface with OSD Oversight Executives, JCTD performers and execution agents, as required.

• Report to TOG at least yearly or as required.

12

OPNAV S&T Coordination Structure

N8F S&T IntegrationN8F S&T Integration

OPNAV S&T AdvisorsOPNAV S&T Advisors

N2 Mr. Gary FaganN4 CDR Michael KondrackiN3/5 VacantN6 Mr. Ryan GunstN85 Mr. Tom SchillerN86 Mr. Marc StockbauerN87 Mr. R. Thad CarmeanN88 Mr. Bill McGregor

MCWLMCWL

PDASN RDAPDASN RDADUSD (AS&C)DUSD (AS&C)

USFFUSFF

ONRONROPNAV N81OPNAV N81

13

OPNAV Responsibilities

• Establish/Validate Navy Operational Requirements and Priorities

• Budget for all Navy Acquisition Programs (FYDP Planning and Programming)

• Ensure No Duplication of Effort

Provide trained and equipped Naval Forces to the Combatant Commanders

Provide trained and equipped Naval Forces to the Combatant Commanders

14

OPNAV Questions

• Is there a requirement for it?• What capability does it provide?• Is it duplicative?• Will it transition and to where?

– If successful, will it be used, purchased, supported when fielded, or become a Program Of Record (POR) or part of a POR?

• Are the funds programmed to support both the effort and the tail?

Is a Resource Sponsor committed to providing the required life-cycle funding?

Is a Resource Sponsor committed to providing the required life-cycle funding?

15

N8F Coordinates OPNAV JCTD Program

• N8F ensures OPNAV requirements and resources are identified

• N8F socializes all JCTD submissions– N80 Pillar concurrence and assessment required– Flag endorsement of PEs required (or offset identified)– OPNAV interfaces (OSD, Services, DASN)– Coordinates with FCB Navy POCs

• JROC validates OSD JCTD selections – N81 staffs

16

Navy Selection Process

• Ranking Considerations

• Process Timeline

• FY09 Ranking Results

17

Ranking Considerations

• FCB/JCB/JROC– Fills joint/coalition gap– Technical maturity– No parallel efforts

• Navy– Military utility– Technology readiness– OPNAV and Fleet priorities– Transition potential– Funding requirements– COCOM and service priorities

18

Stro

ngly

A

gree

(5)

Agr

ee (4

)

Som

ewha

t A

gree

(3)

Dis

agre

e (2

)

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

(1)

JCTD ASSESSMENT FACTORS

1. THE JCTD SUPPORTS JOINT CAPABILITY NEEDS

a. Are COCOM(s) Sponsors lined up?

b. Are at least two Services/Agencies, Coalition Partners supporting?c. Does the JCTD address Joint and Naval Needs (JCIDS, JUONS, CNO, CMC Guicdance, etc.)

2. FUNDING IS IDENTIFIED, AVAILABLE AND COMMITTED

a. Have Naval (and other) Program Elements been identified and committed?b. Are Program Costs Realistic?

3. TECHNOLOGY IS SUITABLE FOR NEAR-TERM APPLICATIONa. Is Technology mature and available (TRL 6+) ?b. Is Technology 'new' and unique (i.e., does NOT duplicate existing systems) ?c. Does the JCTD technology build on FNC Enabling Capabilities?

d. Is the Technical Plan and schedule realistic?

4. CONCEPT IS OPERATIONALLY FEASIBLE AND SUITABLEa. Is the JCTD consistent with future CONOPS?

b. Does the JCTD support future equipment development and employment plans?c. Does the JCTD map to the Sea Trial CD&E Plan?

5. THE JCTD HAS A STRONG TRANSITION PLAN

a. Is the JCTD Transition Strategy clear and in support of joint objectives?b. If this is a new technology, has a PEO or Program Manger been established?

6, RESIDUALS HAVE BEEN PLANNED AND FUNDEDa. Is the EUE laid out well, with and residual systems planned ?

b. Is training and logistics support provided for?

7. THIS JCTD IS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATE FOR THIS FISCAL YEARa. Is Naval support Confirmed, Probable (TBD), or Uncommitted?b. Are Issues identified likely to be resolved?

19

Navy JCTD Timeline of Events

EVENT PERFORMER DATE Develop/Issue Navy Call-For-Proposals letter ONR/ASN (RDA) Aug

Initial assessment of Navy-lead candidatesONR/OPNAV/ PDASN (RDA)/

USFFAug-Sep

RS Review and Candidate down select JCTD ERG WG SepEarly COCOM assessment COCOMs Sep-Nov

Navy In Process Review (IPR)ONR/OPNAV/ PDASN (RDA)/

USFFNov

Secondary Resource Sponsor review OPNAV Nov-DecERG recommendation and submittal to OSD JCTD ERG WG DecERG inputs submitted to OSD ASN(RDA) JanCandidate Review Board (CRB) DUSD(AS&C) Feb-MarValidate candidates FCB/JCB/JROC May-JunDevelop prioritized list of candidates OPNAV/USFF May-Jun

Develop final ranking/ ERG approval JCTD ERG Jun

20

FY10 JCTD Proposals Solicitation and Selection Results

• ASN(RDA) “call” letter (Jul 08)– 24 new proposals/concepts received

– 1 selected for Navy endorsement (FW APKWS)– 1 later submission by SOUTHCOM also endorsed (RIO)

• OSD “call” letter to COCOMs and services (Sep 08)– 33 proposals received– 24 proposals briefed to the Mar 09 Candidate Review Board

• OSD letter of Jun 08 requested Service and COCOM ranking – 12 selected for prioritization, 3 Navy endorsed proposals included– ERG WG developed proposed Navy ranking

• ASN (RDA) combined Navy Marine Corps Response to OSD 1 Jul 09

Anticipate 6 - 8 FY10 JCTDs Will Be Approved

Anticipate 6 - 8 FY10 JCTDs Will Be Approved

draft 21

Selection of Navy JCTD Candidates FY11 Process

• ASN(RDA) “call” letter issued July 09– Provides additional time to develop proposals– Electronic submittal process thru KIMS

• Proposal assessment based on– CoCom endorsement– Relative importance of the Joint problem being addressed– Technology Readiness– Funding Posture– Planned CONOPS– Strength of Transition Plan– Utility of Planned Residuals

• Strongest proposals are submitted to OSD

22

FY11 Navy JCTD White Paper Call Letter

• 2 Sep - White Papers and Quad Charts Due

• 18 Sep - Selection for ProposalDevelopment

• 14 Oct - Proposals & Briefs Due• 17-18 Nov - Naval Proposers Brief• Early Dec - Full Proposal Evaluation• Jan 15 - Naval-Supported, ASN(RDA)

endorsed proposalsforwarded to DUSD(AS&C)

• Any Time - Innovative JCTD Ideas

23

• State the physical nature of the product

• Clarify programmatics

• Contain specific POCs

• Address Funding and Transition

Building a Competitive Proposal

Summary

24

Lessons Learned

• Technology is a given – Where it fits in the existing programmatic

architecture is not

• Decisions matter– Informational briefs do not

• You must make the case– No one else can