End State Options Synthesis 1 Outbrief NASA Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking Wor

1
End State Options Synthesis 1 OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorDoug Cooke,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
2
Session Charter End State Options Synthesis 1

• This team will synthesize one or more end state
  SoSEI org options, taking into account all the
  read ahead data and the mornings presentations,
  as well as additional viewpoints from the session
  participants. Key aspects of the synthesis
  challenge to be considered are
• What are the strengths of the various SoSEI
  organizational models/approaches that were
  presented in the invited lectures, and/or which
  the participants can identify based on their
  extensive expertise and experience?
• How can these features be combined into a new
  organizational design?
• Is there a group consensus around separate
  govt-contractor vs. integrated govt-contractor
  organization?

3
Process Comment

• This presentation does not have conclusions.
• These are brainstorming items of importance
  that should be considered in determining the
  integration approach to be used, but do not
  define that approach.
• The complexity of the issues involved suggest
  that more time for this discussion is indicated.

4
Summary Thoughts

• Enterprise Differences
• Many major elements to be competed over time
• All have to work well
• All have to be amenable to Extension/transition
  to commercial industry/economic activity
• SoSEI Role will change over time
• There wont be a single, fixed end state that
  remains in effect for 30 years instead, think of
  end-state1, end-state2
• Need to take a life-cycle view
• SoSEI has to start before day 1 to be
  successful
• SoSEI must bring in operations activity from the
  start, rather than do a handover
• Major Partnership Required
• Theres plenty of work for everyone in government
  and industry
• While there will be competition, its doubtful
  that anyone will be left out
• This should encourage more partnering and
  cooperation between otherwise competing
  organizations

5
Summary Thoughts, continued

• NASA HQ (Admiral Steidle) is the SoSEI Customer
• SoSEI needs to become his deputy
• Cost, Schedule and Performance across Enterprise
• Manage Enterprise Architecture
• Cooperation across HQ Directorates
• Specific expertise of each NASA Center will be
  required
• SoSEI needs to add value to industry/hardware
  contractors
• Help solve problems
• SoSEI is a very large task
• Too big of job for one entity (i.e., a single
  contractor)
• Everyone involved needs to be part of the team
  nobody should be excluded, but
• Dont Disintegrate the Integrator. The
  multiple players have to be able to function
  together
• There are many organizational and process options
  for SoSEI
• Domain Knowledge National Assets

6
Summary Thoughts, continued

• HW Exclusions
• Independence/impartiality is very important to
  customers
• Can be partial or full
• Regardless of how this is handled, we still need
  to pass the Washington Post Test
• Full exclusion of an organization from h/w
  development has potential problems
• The organization would either not have, or lose,
  h/w development experience
• Technical personnel might be disinclined to join
  an organization if they cant ever develop
  something
• Personnel
• High quality of personnel in the SoSEI
  organization is the key to its success.
• These personnel will change over time, either by
  natural forces or deliberate rotation
• Post-employment restrictions preventing personnel
  from crossing firewalls as they rotate might
  need to be re-examined
• Even with personnel changes, a strong core needs
  to be preserved

7
Summary Thoughts, continued

• Potential Organizations
• FFRDC
• Major Aerospace Industry
• HW Exclusion
• Someone who builds things, has experience
  getting their hands dirty
• Center Lead
• Individual Segment Leads
• Compete for entire SEI Role
• Centers are generally stronger in integration
  than in systems engineering
• National Team
• Can bring the best resources to bear
• Distinction between using an existing or new
  organization is not as large as it seems
• The job is so large that even an aerospace
  mega-contractor (or agency) would need to form a
  new sub-organization to do work
• Such a new sub-organization will need the
  flexibility to vary from existing policies

8
Summary Thoughts, continued

• This is a Tough Problem!
• Needs to be a mature organizational construct
• Technical Capability
• Programmatics
• Partnerships
• Evolving
• Collaborative

9
Overall Organization
Other agencies, internationals, etc.
ESMD
Enterprise SEI
SEI
and/or
FFRDC
NASA Centers
SEI Development
CEV
CTS
GSS
SEI Development
Developers
Interface control by SEI
Subsystems
10
End State Options Synthesis 2 OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorBetsy Park,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
11
Session Charter End State Options Synthesis 2

• This team will synthesize one or more end state
  SoSEI org options, taking into account all the
  read ahead data and the mornings presentations,
  as well as additional viewpoints from the session
  participants. Key aspects of the synthesis
  challenge to be considered are
• What are the strengths of the various SoSEI
  organizational models/approaches that were
  presented in the invited lectures, and/or which
  the participants can identify based on their
  extensive expertise and experience?
• How can these features be combined into a new
  organizational design?
• Is there a group consensus around separate
  govt-contractor vs. integrated govt-contractor
  organization?

12
Brainstorming Items

• Organizational Models
• Nested IPT Broad membership incl. Product
  Primes (developers, operators, centers, etc.)
• SEI org/contract at the top level
• Strong Prime empowered to make cost, performance
  trades, hold margins
• Hierarchical tiered structure
• Role is integrator of integrators
• Hardware exclusion necessary ?
• Yes, because possible conflict of interest
  between govt SI
• No, firewalls are supported by individual ethics
• Multiple SIs Different SI solns are likely,
  desirable for different categories of work.
  Possible major segments
• Major HW components HW Prime
• Individual mission (defined by particular
  exploration goal) Prime oversight w govt.
• Upper tier structure planning (should be govt/
  non profit) Govt / Non-profit
• Cross-cutting segments (e.g. comm) No solution
  identified potentially multiple.

13
Brainstorming Items

• Organizational Models
• NASA Integrated Program Office with Single SEI
  Contractor
• Establishes centers of excellence for
  integration, responsibilities at centers (Tier D)
• NASA owns cost, schedule, performance, award fees
• Centralized control direct to members, not
  through center mgmt.
• LSI Contract with Hardware Exclusion
• Govt led with non-profit support (FFRDC ?) in
  Tier A/B/C
• LSI Prime with HW exclusion in Tier D
• Integrator of Integrators
• Series of SEI contractors over time working as
  the integrator of integrators
• Near-term spiral vs. long-term spiral are
  different challenges
• Contracts managed, led by centers
• NASA Does the Whole Job
• LSI-led (Future Combat System -like Model)
• NASA strongly integrated with the LSI, the glue
• Clear roles, responsibilities, controls
  processes use competition
• LSI selects the HW contractors, recommends fees
• Co-location irrelevant due to tech. Distributed
  workforce centralized mgmt.

14
Brainstorming Items

• Organizational Models
• NASA Institute Alternative Model to FFRDC
• Acknowledging need for system integration
  techniques for different tech-level developments
• Fed. employees formed into institute with
  authority to lead tech. development

15
Brainstorming Items

• Brainstorming SEI End State Options
• Desired Characteristics
• Proposed objective criteria
• maximize exploration unit / .
• programmatic survival political, by building
  constituency that lasts
• Widely distributed functions (geographically,
  organizationally, functionally) to support
  interoperability
• Responsibility is verification of correct,
  feasible reqmts/ and validation that they were
  met
• Objective Management Must be keeper of figures
  of merit --- sustainability, supportability,
  interoperability. And then relate the mission
  objectives to the FOM, ensure they can/will be
  met
• Structure must allow feedback in measuring and
  controlling Cost, Schedule, Performance
• Trust of System Integrator vs. Prime
• full disclosure ?. Must set up rules for EVM
  from Day 1
• Proprietary data. The decision of partial (?) HW
  exclusion has bearing on this. Make a good, early
  decision.
• The SI must understand HW development. Is HW
  expertise necessary?
• No, not organizationally, just staffed
  appropriately
• Yes, b/c most mistakes made in design, discovered
  in IT.
• SI structure must be spiral-developed
  Open-ended and tailorable to evolving exploration
  goals.

16
Brainstorming Items

• Brainstorming SEI End State Options
• Desired Characteristics (cont)
• Integrator of integrator Service to new
  project/integrators
• How do new developments tap into the existing
  development structure ?
• Not so driven to consensus that continually
  forced to compromise
• How much control will the govt give up ?
• Physical presence vs. virtual co-location ?
• Flexible on distributed vs. centralized,
  evolutionary over the life of exploration
• Basic structure with different players over time
• Clear centralized leadership
• SI 100 accountable to centralized leadership
• FFRDC risk is that they a) are immune from
  responsibility, b) tend to exist for themselves,
  not responsive to leadership
• Hardware exclusion ? At the basic level, ethics
  is the responsibility of the individual, but
  should take away the incentive to cheat

17
Brainstorming Items

• Brainstorming SEI End State Options
• Options to Add to the Trade Space
• Consider SE SI separately
• SI in A/B/C
• SE in D
• Other consortia options (NGO), Non-profit/FFRDC
  grown from other orgs

18
Brainstorming Items

• Organizational Models
• System Integration Teams
• LSI Integrates by mission phase separate from
  developers
• HW exclusion not necessary
• NASA manages trade space across missions (Tier
  A-C)
• Tier E has own SI
• 1 SI team for dev, 1 for ops, 1 for pgm
  integration

19
Session 1 Four Models OutbriefNASA
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate
Benchmarking Workshop End State Options and
Acquisition Strategies for the NASA Exploration
System of Systems IntegratorBetsy Park,
FacilitatorDecember 16, 2004
20
Session Charter

• Session objectives This team will evaluate
  strengths/weaknesses of Options 1-4, and will
  propose actions that can be taken to ensure that
  these options are enabled.
• Option 1 Apollo Model Tier A-C SETA, Prime of
  Primes
• Option 2 Tier A-D SETA with HW Partial Exclusion
• Option 3 Tier A-D Independent Organization SETA
• Option 4 NAVSEA Nested MAIT Model
• Process note from the splinter session
• These options differ from those in the NRC report
  distributed prior to the workshop and that were
  reviewed by most (if not all) participants.
• Session members had only a brief introduction to
  these four options, and then a short time to
  evaluate them.
• Greater understanding of the options, coupled
  with more time to study them, would likely lead
  to differentand more matureresults

21
Two Common Themes

• For any model, the people doing the SOSI task are
  the key elementas important as the structure.
• A perfect structure without great people will
  fail.
• An imperfect structure with great people could
  succeed.
• The term end state is problematic
• Constellation, NASA, public policy, and other key
  factors will evolve over time, very likely in
  ways not foreseeable today
• The SoSEI organization must be adaptable to
  these changes
• While an end state SoSEI structure could be
  defined in the near term based on current
  conditions, it should not be seen as permanently
  defined and inflexible

22
Option Comparison Pros
This splinter considered three potential
variations of Option 3, which likely have
different advantages and disadvantages.
23
Option Comparison Cons
24
Option Comparison Cons, continued
25
Option Comparison Notes
26
Potential Hybrid Structure

• Use Option 1 (Apollo) for Tiers A-C
• Use Option 4 (NAVSEA-Virginia) for Tier D and
  below

27
Evaluation Criteria Outbrief(reflecting
post-workshop integration)NASA Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking
Workshop End State Options and Acquisition
Strategies for the NASA Exploration System of
Systems IntegratorVincent Bilardo,
FacilitatorDecember 15, 2004
28
1. Affordability Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Cost of acquiring and maintaining SoSEI
  capability, consisting of
• Transition The SoSEI End State transition plan
  mitigates risks to NASA and the Exploration
  program, is logical and timely, minimizes impacts
  to ongoing operations and existing contracts, and
  contains minimal disruption to existing
  interfaces and agreements.
• Establishment The establishment of the option
  considers the complexity of the implementation,
  the requirement for approval/legislation outside
  of NASA, the predictability of the outcome, the
  time needed for establishment, the longevity of
  the arrangement, and the ability to re-compete or
  sever arrangements.
• Facilities The option enables the ability to
  obtain the necessary facility resources to
  perform SoSEI functions and maximize the
  accessibility, availability, and overall cost
  effectiveness in the use of the required facility
  resources - including those that are owned and/or
  operated by the government.
• Control The organization has an appropriate
  level of control for managing the SoSEI functions
  and external organizations will respond to NASA
  direction as required to carry out their
  responsibilities.
• Competencies The competency strategy achieves a
  balanced result between staffing critical SoSEI
  competencies from NASA, industry, and academia.
• Ability to manage life cycle cost and achieve
  Spiral affordability.
• Ability to achieve long-term public funding
  stability.

29
2. Organizational and Cultural Effectiveness
Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Ability to rapidly startup and achieve Initial
  Operational Capability (IOC).
• Ability to transition seamlessly from
  Near/Mid-Term SoSEI solution to the End State
  solution, maintaining SoSEI integrity through
  each phase.
• Adaptability, flexibility, responsiveness and
  evolvability The SoSEI option is capable of
  being responsive to the requirements of the
  directorate and the program with flexibility to
  adapt to requirement changes in a timely manner.
  Risks introduced to the program due to the
  evolution are well-characterized and can be
  mitigated to an acceptable level. The option
  organizational design is robust and flexible
  enough to allow additional evolution as program
  requirements evolve.
• Ability to establish and maintain clear lines of
  communication, authority, responsibility, and
  accountability across all interfaces between
  organizations and within each organization.
• Staffing retention ability The new SoSEI
  organization enables a full suite of human
  capital strategies and necessary to acquire and
  retain the skilled workforce and levels of
  expertise required to perform SoSEI functions,
  and to address potential adverse impacts on
  transitioning NASA employees. The degree of
  complexity of the strategies and tools, and the
  effort necessary for this implementation is
  considered to be reasonable for NASA to
  undertake.
• Minimum organizational complexity, i.e., a
  minimum number of distinct organizational units
  and/or interfaces between organizational units.
  Are the government and contractor components of
  the SoSEI organization separately badged, or are
  they integrated into a joint, "badge-less"
  organization?
• Ability to avoid/manage conflicts of interest,
  including maintaining a clear understanding of
  Government vs. Contractor Roles
  Responsibilities, while promoting and rewarding
  constructive internal competition.
• Ability to promote innovation, measure and reward
  performance, and ensure process excellence
  (6-sigma, CMMI, etc.).
• Maintenance of independent thinking, conclusions
  recommendations and Ability to influence
  strategic goals.
• Ability to secure and maintain credibility with
  Internal Stakeholders.
• Attract sufficient staff with the necessary skill
  mix.

30
3. Political and External Environments
Effectiveness Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Credibility with external stakeholders The
  SoSEI organization has credibility in the
  technical, political, and public communities. The
  option provides the capability to effectively
  advocate and acquire viable and sustainable
  funding resources and to clearly communicate the
  relevance of the program.
• Sustainability The SoSEI option enhances the
  long term sustainability of the program,
  including the following subfactors
• Ability to Promote Commercial Ventures
• Ability to Rebuild and Sustain the Space
  Industrial Base
• Ability to Engage Public and Maintain
  Enthusiasm/Support
• Ability to Secure Military Buy-In
• Achieve Security Objectives
• Ability to Leverage Non-Exploration Capabilities.
• Ability to manage and integrate international
  partners. The SoSEI option provides the
  authority, resources, and international
  credibility to establish and maintain
  international relationships, including
  partnerships, barter agreements, and other
  contract arrangements. The SoSEI option enables
  the seamless integration of international
  partners and their contributions. Relevant
  organizations within the option have recent,
  demonstrated experience with international
  collaborations.

31
4. Expertise and Experience Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Space domain expertise One or more of the
  organizations in the SoSEI option has recent,
  relevant , and demonstrated experience with
  large, complex, high visibility, and high cost
  system of systems. The role of the experienced
  organization(s) enables it to translate that
  expertise throughout the option and train other
  organizations/personnel as necessary.
• Past performance during transition The SoSEI
  team members have demonstrated recent excellent
  performance in executing SoSEI functions,
  including for non-ESMD customers.
• Ability to foster technology development and
  infuse new technology The SoSEI option enables
  the seamless integration of new technology into
  future missions/spirals. Relevant organizations
  within the option have recent, demonstrated
  experience in technology development and
  integration.

32
5. Knowledge Management Effectiveness Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Data rights security management The SoSEI
  option has appropriate authorities and safeguards
  to allow the system integrator to handle, manage,
  and safeguard proprietary data of multiple
  hardware system/element corporate providers. The
  organizations have demonstrated performance in
  maintaining the security of sensitive data from
  government and contractor sources.
• Ability to enable government corporate knowledge
  retention. The SoSEI option provides processes
  and information systems to enable enduring
  corporate knowledge retention over the life of
  the program. The processes and systems must be
  able to evolve over the long program duration
  without loss of knowledge.
• Ability to enable a government smart buyer role.
  The SoSEI option enables NASA to obtain and
  retain corporate programmatic and technical
  knowledge across successive spirals. The option
  enables NASA to maintain its internal expertise
  in system engineering and integration at a
  sufficient level for the government smart buyer
  role. NASA has clear visibility into the
  contractor(s), sufficient to provide technical
  and managerial insight into all aspects of the
  system of systems engineering and integration and
  to provide oversight of the contractor's
  performance.
• Knowledge acquisition management The SoSEI
  option employs information systems and
  technologies to increase systems integration
  efficiency through knowledge sharing and
  accessibility. Advances in knowledge management
  are regularly infused into the SoSEI processes
  and tools.

33
6. SoSEI Effectiveness Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Efficiency The SoSEI option is able to deliver
  products within available resources on schedule.
  The option minimizes non-productive use of
  resources that negatively affect the
  implementation of the program. Organizations
  within the option perform regular self-analysis
  and analysis of each program to ensure sustained
  performance.
• Ability to access full-range of SoSEI skills
  capabilities (including Teaming).
• Ability to work across multiple organization
  types (Government, Industry, Academia).
• Ability to institutionalize SoSEI decisions.
• Ability of SoSEI to make acquisitions (e.g., team
  and hire subcontractors, acquire facilities,
  etc.).
• Lack of monolithic structure/distributed approach
  (i.e., ability of the SoSEI option to located
  resources wherever needed across the ESMD
  enterprise so as to effectively execute SoSEI
  functions and responsibilities).
• Ability to develop a balanced view and
  implementation of commonality (i.e., the full
  SoS-level impacts of commonality must be analyzed
  to determine the optimum level of its required
  application).

34
7. Program Management and SEI Effectiveness
Criterion

• This criterion is defined to include the
  following factors
• Ability to manage system integration The SoSEI
  option performs the full spectrum of system of
  systems engineering and integration function
  including requirements decomposition, flow, and
  traceability, functional allocation, systems
  design, modeling and simulation capability,
  verification and validation, trade assessments,
  strategy to task to technology, risk management,
  etc. All elements are given sufficient resources
  to enable the smooth, successful operation of the
  whole.
• Ability to manage complex technical,
  organizational process interfaces The SoSEI
  option provides clear, direct management of the
  system of systems interfaces with a clean
  delineation of responsibilities across the
  interfaces.
• Ability to perform SOS program control (cost,
  schedule, CM/DM, risk, etc.).
• Ability to promote commonality (H/W, S/W,
  processes).
• Ability to manage IT, SBA, S/W development.
• Ability to manage geographically distributed
  complex interfaces (organization, system,
  software, etc.)
• Ability to ensure system safety and execute all
  the -ilities integrated logistics,
  reliability, supportability and maintainability
  analysis, etc.
• Ability to ensure compliance with environmental,
  safety and health regulations.
• Ability to incorporate science community
  requirements.
• Ability to achieve mission success.

35
Acquisition Strategy OutbriefNASA Exploration
Systems Mission Directorate Benchmarking
Workshop End State Options and Acquisition
Strategies for the NASA Exploration System of
Systems IntegratorDale Thomas,
FacilitatorDecember 16, 2004
36
Splinter Session Acquisition Strategy Splinter
The Plaza Room

• Session objectives this team will identify key
  aspects of the acquisition strategy NASA should
  pursue to implement the End State Option(s).
  These aspects should include, at a minimum
• Recommended contract and solicitation type
• Desirable industry partnering/teaming
  arrangements
• Contractor hardware exclusions (full, partial,
  none), and specific features or such exclusions
  (the more detail here the better!)
• Arrangements for SoSEI organization/contractor
  handling of Exploration system/element hardware
  prime contractor proprietary/sensitive data
• Design of incentives.
• Transition strategy.
• Session leadership
• Dale Thomas (facilitator)
• Louise Hamlin (recorder)

37
Option 1 Apollo Model Tier A-C SETA, Prime of
Primes

• Pros
• Standard process organization
• Good lines of communication
• Pushes decision authority lower
• Takes advantage of center expertise
• HQ can concentrate on up, freeing project to
  build product
• Negs
• Tiered integration function not specified
• Conflict of interest integrator also builds HW
• HQ SETA contractor weak
• Promotes center rivalry
• Model originates from non spiral development
• Commercial IP issues not addressed
• Prime-of-primes has no control on other
  contracts
• Co-location at HQ from centers may not bring
  best-of-best
• HQ SETA contractor may devolve to information
  gathering mode only, may be viewed as HQ spies

• Actions/ Additional Concerns
• Requires very strong constellation pgm to balance
  arguments ensure pgm-wide standards policies
• Clarify interfaces to intnl partners
• Clarify technology infusion mgmt
• Add HW exclusion capability

38
Option 2 Tier A-D SETA with HW Partial Exclusion
Strong SEI contractor role in Tier A-D with no
contract letting responsibilities

• Pros
• Contractor represents a strong tech. partner
• Also outreach capability educational, political,
  etc.
• Span of control responsibility, authority
  enables clear decision-making
• SEI Prime has advantage in attracting talent to
  team (hiring and teaming)
• Added stability through spiral
• Responsive to Congr. funding
• Negs
• Primes might resist decision-making control of
  SEI Prime
• Partial HW exclusion invites possible
  Credibility/ Conflict of Interest
• Proprietary data (govt, Prime) management a
  challenge when SEI Prime so involved
• Prime SEI Role (dual leadership HW role) may
  attract Congressional fire
• Clear lines of control might be difficult to
  define

• Actions/ Additional Concerns
• Partial HW excl. How do you keep key expertise ?
• Firewalls (separate SEI org from HW providing
  org)
• Importance SEI expertise or HW expertise ?
• Importance Acquisition support from SEI Prime ?
• Fee-on-fee

39
Option 3 Tier A-D Independent Organization

• Negs
• Large/ early investment required
• Requires Congr. act to create (headcount limits)
• Credibility of new organization
• Do they have experience on this scale ?
• One Client service Org.
• No Reach back, no bench
• DC location
• Limited career paths for high performers
• Slow spin up time
• No Hardware experience
• Mitigators
• Use an existing org (Aerospace, Mitre, etc)
• Modify charter
• Limits (head count)
• Resolve Regulatory Issues
• Do not mandate DC based Structure
• Push contracting responsibility to the centers

One Client Service Organization

• Pros
• Independent agency/org (No OCI)
• Pockets of strong engineering talent

• Conclusion Cant get there from here

40
Option 4 NAVSEA Nested MAIT Model

• Negs
• Very staffing intensive
• Comm intensive (lots of mtgs !)
• Cross-element modeling analysis must be planned
  structured
• Risk of participants driving decisions to their
  advantage
• Integrators must have independent authority
• Past success were at lower levels of
  integration
• Implementation Actions
• Define structure up front scale-up/tailor Navy
  model ?
• Decide how authority is delegated
• Is there a Prime-of-Primes ?
• Govt/Contractor mix

• Pros
• Flexible, incremental, buy by the yard,
  tailorable to spiral dev.
• Maximizes comm. insight, no 3rd party integr.
• Doesnt require lrg SoSEI at start could begin
  implementation at Spiral 1
• Ownership/accountability at the lowest lvl
• Easy to balance NASA/Contactor mix

41
Splinter Session Acquisition Strategy Splinter
The Plaza Room

• Session objectives this team will identify key
  aspects of the acquisition strategy NASA should
  pursue to implement the End State Option(s).
  These aspects should include, at a minimum
• Recommended contract and solicitation type
• Desirable industry partnering/teaming
  arrangements
• Contractor hardware exclusions (full, partial,
  none), and specific features or such exclusions
  (the more detail here the better!)
• Arrangements for SoSEI organization/contractor
  handling of Exploration system/element hardware
  prime contractor proprietary/sensitive data
• Design of incentives.
• Transition strategy.
• Session leadership
• Dale Thomas (facilitator)
• Louise Hamlin (recorder)

42
Acquisition Strategies Option 1
Q Teaming Arrangements SETA A Flexibility to
Sub based on needs , Teaming with GWT LABs PoP A
Standard Govt procurement ACAs Q Contractor
HW exclusions SETA A 100 HW exclusion or
Firewall SOSI Div. PoP A do pre-decisional
analysis prior to HW award Q Arrangements for
proprietary/sensitive data A No unusual
concerns, standard model PoP gets no special
position post-decisional Q Design of
incentives SETA A Shared-savings PoP A
Incentive fee Q Transition strategy SETA A
Could do today PopA Could work as near-term and
end state option
Q Contract Solicitation SETA A Cost fee PoP A
Cost fee, separate integration contract
43
Acquisition Strategies Option 2

• Q Contract Solicitation
• A Cost (fixed fee) or incentive
• Length of contract 5-10yr for base period
• Q Teaming Arrangements
• A Suggest no restrictions, could take advantage
  of specific skills of everyone, effective
  partnering will mitigate conflict COI
• Q Contractor HW exclusions
• A Partial, bidding of team at least 2 levels
  lower (no Prime)
• Firewalls for external credibility, COI
• Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
• A Protect data b/t Primes, 100 access to Prime
  data
• Export-controlled (intnl) non-disciminator
• Q Design of incentives
• A Long term contract is incentive, prestige of
  program also
• Q Transition strategy

44
Acquisition Strategies Option 3

• Q Contract Solicitation
• A Team Selection, not competition
• Q Teaming Arrangements
• A Not applicable
• Q Contractor HW exclusions
• A 100 exclusion
• Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
• AN/A Quasi-Govt
• Export-controlled (intnl) non-disciminator
• Q Design of incentives
• A No contractual fee
• Performance-based bonus
• Q Transition strategy
• A Post-Spiral 1 SRR to End State, start-state
  dependent,

One Client Service Organization
45
Acquisition Strategies Option 4

• Q Contract Solicitation
• A Cost award fee, full-and-open competition
• Linkage to prime contracts for integration tasks,
  products, 5 yr options, covers all spirals
• Q Teaming Arrangements
• A not a sig. factor neither precluded or
  reqd
• Another view Boeing, LM, NG directed subs
• Q Contractor HW exclusions
• A 100
• Q Arrangements for proprietary/sensitive data
• A Govt purpose data only, not prop. data from
  Day 1
• Q Design of incentives
• A Fee structure must incentive SoS-level
  performance (e.g. 1 in all contracts for major
  MSs)
• Q Transition strategy

46
Policy OutbriefNASA Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate Benchmarking Workshop End
State Options and Acquisition Strategies for the
NASA Exploration System of Systems
IntegratorBetsy Park, FacilitatorDecember
16, 2004
47
Session Charter Policy

• Session objectives this team will identify
  policy, regulatory, and statutory issues
  associated with the target End State Option(s)
  identified during the orientation.
• What are the obstacles that lie in the path to
  standing up the End State organization?
• What new authorities, if any, will NASA require
  in order to establish the End State SoSEI
  organization? The more specific, the better!
• Are there other organizations that have executed
  a similar transition, or which have obtained and
  implemented such policies/authorities? What
  successes and problems were encountered?

48
Brainstorming Items Creating a New Organization

• Creating an FFRDC requires
• Congressional buy-in this can be difficult to
  get.
• Unique purpose, not presently available in
  industry
• Alternative options
• Similar to a public utility For profit but
  regulated
• Not-for-profit organization (e.g., original
  MITRE)
• Danger of going native
• UARC (University Affiliated Research Center)
• Joint Sponsored Research Agreement
• A contract, but exempted from FAR provisions,
  falls under Space Act
• Justification required
• Not clear that this is applicable
• Creating an Institute (e.g., National Aerospace
  Institute at LaRC)

49
Policy Issues to be Explored

• Easing Civil Service rules for NASA personnel to
  facilitate mobility
• Use incentives that are permissible, e.g.,
  relocation
• Look at statutory restrictionssee what else is
  possible
• Non-traditional use of IPAs to bring civil
  servants into a new organization
• Consider personnel ceilingscan you backfill
  people who leave a Center?
• Consider governance
• Must understand organizational constraints of
  workforce outside of NASA, e.g., other agencies,
  internationals, FFRDCs, industry
• Reach mutual understanding on operating
  principles
• ITAR
• Intellectual property
• Defining and enforcing common standards
  (international)
• Multi-year funding authority
• Establishing regulatory policies for commercial
  participation

50
Policy Issues to be Explored, continued

• Environmental protection (including planetary
  protection)
• Division of labor between NASA and the SOSI
• Other organizations for benchmarking
• Look at NPOESStri-agency steering group