/ .

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664.J'7 /

. ~""·-· l _, .,.'

FINAL REPORT

OF

. I 11111111111111111111111111

MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACTING EVALUATION GROUP FOR PROCURING A STAR SENSOR SUB-SYSTEM

(WITH BRIEFING CHARTS)

24 MARCH 1976

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664

'St" co co 00 ..... ..... IJ') 0 (.) ..... 0

---IJ') 0

---0) ..... 0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

.2 "O Q)

> e Cl.. Cl.. <(

,..-...,..-... ...--- ('I) .__....__... ,..-...,..-... ..0 ..0 .__....__...

"

SSA COSTS

,· ,· CONSTRAINTS

BENDIX/ITEK WouLD SUBCONTRACT TO PE FOR CAMERA SYSTEM INTEGRATION

c=JCoMPARABLE TO THOSE ON K-4 WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR SSA

• K-4 TYPE STAR SENSOR ASSEMBLIES WOULD BE.USED

HEXAGON SUSTAINING MANPOWER AT PE IS NOT NECESSARILY AVAILABLE FOR SSA

LMsc MinsEcTioN MonIFICATioNs SIMILAR To s3 ExcEPT FoR A

c=]THERMAL SOLUTION

I I

~i::rr:;,rT I

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM

,,

'St" co co 00 ..... ..... IJ') 0 (.) ..... 0

---IJ') 0

---0) ..... 0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) O:::· I...

.2 "O Q)

> e Cl.. Cl.. <(

D'="SrR"DTTnrJ t. 1..,.!1 .. v1'l

'St" co - REDUNDANT co 00 ...... ......

SYSTEM I,() o· () ...... 6 ~GUN~ED ORTHOGONALLY 0

---I,() 0

---0) ...... 0 STAR SENSORS ASSEMBLIES N ''

. Q) Cf) ; 3 SSAs Cll , Q)

Q) 0::: I...

0 SUBCONTRACT MONITORING COSTS '+-

"'O Q)

> QAJ QCJ QE BEFORE DELIVERY 0 I... Cl.. Cl.. <(

LABOR AND OVERHEAD

COMPUTER; TRAVEL; OTHER

G&A/FEE AT PE

LMSC.INTEGRATION

SSA COSTS

BASIS OF ESTIMATE \'

SOURCE OF INFORMATION

KPO NEGOTIATED COSTS

ON K-4

.

KPO COST ON K-4

Cosr:AT THE PRIME

PROPOSED FOR DESIGN

BUILD & INTEGRATION OF S~

S3 PROPOSAL

s3 PRoPosAL , S3 COST ESTIMATE

$ IN MI LLIC

COST -$ 3.420 'St"

' co co 00 ...... ...... I,() 0 () ...... 0

---I,() 0

---0)

$ 3.620 ...... 0

,N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

$ .500 0 '+-

"'O . Q)

> 0 I... Cl.. Cl..

' <(

$11.030

$ • 800 11

23%/15% '

$ 5.000

...

SSA COSTS BAS IS ,·QF ESTIMATE

'

'St" CONTINGENCY co 'St"

co . co

co 00 ,I 00 ..... ..... ..... ..... IJ') IJ') 0 0 (,) FUND PROTECTION PROVIDING FOR: .....

(,)

0 ..... 0

--- ---IJ') ' IJ') 0 0

--- ---0) 0) ..... ..... 0 N · INCREASING SENSITIVITY OF STAR SENSORS. 0

. N

Q) Q) Cf) , Cf) Cll Cll Q) . Q)

Q) 0::: REDESIGN OF THECSSA/SV INTERFACE.

Q)

I...

0::: 0

'+-

I...

0 '+-

"'O "'O . Q) . Q)

> > 0 0 I... I... Cl.. Cl.. NORMAL COST GROWTH. <(

Cl.. Cl.. <(

,,

,

~r:fRf.7T HANDLE VIA BYEMAN ..

'St" co co 00 ..... ..... IJ') 0 (.) ..... 0

---IJ') 0

---0) ..... 0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

.2 "O Q)

> e Cl.. Cl.. <(

.. SSA COSTS

SAFSP ESTIMATE FOR SV 17-18

BENDIX/ITEK SUBCONTRACTS c=JAssEMBLIES - 2

STAR SENSOR As~EMBLIES - 4

,.

SUBCONTRACT MONITORING BEFORE DELIVERY

PE CAMERA SYSTEM INTEGRATION LABOR AND OVERHEAD COMPUTER, TRAVEL, OTHER G&A (INCLUDING SUBCONTRACTS) FEE

LMSC SYSTEM INTEGRATION MIDSECTION MODIFICATION

THERMAL SOLUTION

•

SUBTOTAL .I

CONTINGE

TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED COST ESTIMATE

$6,840 4.825 1.000

$5.000 .800

4.200 3.390

$5.000 l.ooo

$12.665

$13,390

$ 6,000 ,I

$32.055 $ 5.200

$37.255

.

'St" co co 00 ..... ..... IJ') 0 (.) ..... 0

---IJ') 0

---0) ..... 0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

0 '+-

"O Q)

> 0 I... Cl.. Cl.. <(

,•

0

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664

J[u~\C 17 'f\

FINAL REPORT

OF

MANAGEMENT AND CONTRACTING EVALUATION GROUP FOR PROCURING A STAR SENSOR SUB-SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

This report is a supplement to 11 Final Report of Star Sensor Assembly Evaluation Group" dated 15 March 1976. This report consists of six parts. The first part is a brief summary of facts gathered and con­clusions drawn by the SSA Evaluation Group. Parts II through V contain background, management concerns, various contract approaches and con­clusions drawn by the Management and Contracting Evaluation Group. The sixth part is a copy of the briefing charts used by this group to brief Major General Kulpa on the results of the evaluation.

PART I

The Star Sensor Assembly Evaluation Group was formed at the request of Major General Kulpa to evaluate the capability of 11off-the-shelf 11 Star Sensor Assembly (SSA) to fulfill the Hexagon Program's mapping require­ments for Vehicle 17 and up. Based upon the group's evaluation, it was concluded that the SSA could not be eliminated as a possible contender to fulfill the OMA requirements for the Hexagon metric pan camera system. However, it was also recognized that time and lack of data left many significant areas only superficially reviewed and should a decision be~ made to pursue a more definitive proposal for the SSA use, the following areas required additional attention: ·

, l. Adequacy of vehicle --~

2. Impact of dedicated on vehicle power budget.

3. The .method, accuracy and mission impact of calibration of the ov era 11 sys tern •

4. Signal/noise analysis of SSA operating at 6.5 MV.

5. Possibility of reducing SSA detection capability below the 6.5 MV thereby increasing star acquisition rate and lowering dependence on gyros.

6. Capability of any proposed system to fulfill the overall system require~ents with special emphasis on the 3 arc sec relative accuracy.

In the process of performing the technical evaluation of the SSA, it became appar~nt that certain management and contractual factors also required attentio.n. Some of the concerns were verbally ad1½_~.=5_ffg Via

,i,]1! \.-f-ta~ • i':,),,.,1;:~;• ?;\r·,:·~, Cr r,, 'f"\ '!""'-+ J r:,,'" ·· · , r ,.., ~ ". j · ' r.· .~ A~ ~l,li. '.·"" .· ;; ~:\

•i ': , ... t.\ t I . i: ; ! ... ,. ~ . . .J • • : :· ... ~: :")

\.,;__vu"'....,.. L_:1 '.: l-'::, ___ ,.;u'.1Ll''

(b )( 1) (b)(3)

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664 Cont::::-.ol SyoteJl Only

(b )( 1 (b)(3

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664 q, ,; 3 ~ ., ' • i / t\ ,J~-~J\! ·~~

during the preliminary briefing on 11 March 1976. As a result of this briefing, General Kulpa requested another group be formed to evaluate the management and contracting factors associated with contracting for a star sen~or sub-system on a competitive basis, i.e., Solid State Stellar (S) and SSA systems.

PART II

The Management and Contracting Evaluation Group was formed to evaluate:

1. Reasons s3 was originally considered to be a selected source.

2. Various contract approaches that could be taken to effect a com-petition for the procurement of the systems ·from PE or Bendix-Itek. ·

3. Opening the competition for the procurement of a system to all qualified sources.

4. In conjunction with the above, procurement lead times and development/production schedules of the total Hexagon system.

0 PART III

0

A. BACKGROUND

1. In the summer of 1974, SAFSP, OMA, Aerospace and SAFSS personnel reviewed a number·of proposed methods of determining Hexagon vehicle

. attitude to meet OMA mapping requirements. Basic conclusions made from~ this review were:

a. Slit-type star-tracker attitude reference cameras (SSA basic ~esign) could meet the pointing accuracy requirements only with extensive integration effort with the vehicle This was considered unaccept-able.

b. _Film stellar cameras which would either image stars on Hexagon intra-op film or on a separate film web were considered but were determined to have an unacceptable impact on the host vehicle.

c. The Solid State Stellar (S3) Camera concept had the potential to meet the accuracy requirements and was the only candidate which met the criteria for minimal impact on the current Hexagon vehicle.

2 After evaluating the s3 concept further, SAFSP concluded that the s3 cubed camera was a high risk development program due to its use of Charge Coupled Devices (CCD's) as the focal plane. In addition, the whole concept that the panoramic camera line of sight was stable to a 5 arc-second accuracy appeared to be a high risk assum~tion. For these and other concerns, the recommendation was made that S not be implemented. This recommendation was made by SAFSP to SAFSS during the falLof.1974.

I •. ·' : •· ·, d, ('\ r 1:--: 7" -:-"'T A. ,. ··· ......... ~. ;:: r\ ~

2 ~ :, ;; . : - . ·: • "7~ . ~• . -· ·. t "l \j 1,_r~ • ~.; ., ·a · _,, n . : _·; _ _ . : _. _ ~ ,. .:i Ll •J

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664C ·:: C:::.' . -· ~" -- ·: :..,~J. Only

C)

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664 - ;J

3. Based on these concerns for the s3/Panoramic Metric Pan co~cept, SAFSS requested a study be performed to evaluate the risks involved. This study was initiated in November 1974 and was intended for completion by July 1975, _so a decision for SV-17 and SV-18 mapping requirements could be made. Shortly after the study was begun, direction was received stating that S-Cubed implementation would he no earlier than Block IV ~o the study completion date was changed to l January 1976 and made more comprehensive.

4. In February 1975, the Star Sensor Assembly (SSA) to be used by another program was reviewed by SAFSP with LMSC and customer personnel. This device was determined to be similar to the hardware reviewed in 1974 and would have the same problems meeting accuracy requirements without extensive integration with11on the Hexagon vehicle. In addition, the problems being exper,~by the SSA at that time con­cerning cost, schedule, and performance did not make it appear as an attractive alternative.

5. Prior to completing the s3 risk evaluation but after extensive effort had been completed (November 1975), the Staff requested a risk e~aluation on the S-Cubed concept. A revised risk assessment (i.e., S was now considered a low risk project) combined with other factors resulted in the following direction to SAFSP.

a. Cancel Itek mapping cameras for SV-17 and SV-18, and

b. Continue MPS work to assure SV-17 implementation with the proviso that not more than $1 million be expended until SAFSS reviewed the mapping requirement and alternatives further with OMA. The final decision has been delayed from February 1976 until l April 1976. --

B. SELECTED SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR s3

'- l. After the decision to cancel SV-17 and -18 mapping cameras, SAFSP looked at the justification for continuing what had evolved as a selected source procurement. Sufficient justification was considered, to be available for the following reasons:

a. Only s3 appeared as a workable concept ·that had been veri­fied by detailed study and still met the criteria of minimal impact on the host vehicle.

b. Perkin-Elmer had the best chance of meeting system performance objectives because:

(l} They had two years to study and understand the problem from a system standpoint.

(2) They would have overall performance responsibility for meeting- the 5 arc-second system pointing accuracy.

. 3 H!'.':nnla v· -s r""' ,~ ,...f /. ->c •• ., 1a. ~ ,: • -'. ' f'h1 " :; · _-, r· r; '"1 ,.. ; :a .. , . ,5 ~,.r., 'I:~_ . ;', 1•,1 ~~ ..

" ~ ~ > ~ ,J ·, • '',, } • ' • ~. ~ I' ; '. :> ~ ..... ,.,,~- • _, _,.._/\\ L.:✓' ~~ • - ___ - -: '· '-J . • (; , _ "• i _., 11..l,., .,l :; lJ r.J -

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C0511866lr1·-;:.:-01. G;;r.::; -c C,:l Only

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01C05118664

JC\Jf\C I/ 11

(3) They have a 900-man task force capable of working· any unforeseen problems in either the stellar camera or the panoramic camera.

c. Only Perkin-Elmer had the capability to continue to work the Metric Pan problem from November 1975 until SAFSS decides on a course of action with the limited dollars available. Perkin-Elmer is continuing with the sustaining engineering labor force available.

d. The sustaining engineering available at Perkin-Elmer made any alternative to S-Cubed questionable from a cost standpoint, especially if Block IV systems are considered without the non-recurring development costs.

e. Schedule requirements to meet a SV-17 effectivity were very tight,and open competition procurement schedule was considered to be prohibitive from a total program schedule standpoint.

PART IV

The following management concerns are presented to provide a summary of the problems this group feels are involv~d in achieving a metric panoramic capability.

,,, A. SSA CONCEPT MATURITY

Use of the SSA as an attitude sensor for the Hexagon Progr~m uses a totally different attitude determination concept than does S , and the SSA has significantly different impacts on the Hexagon Program. This group recommends a detailed study be performed on the SSA concept. The--: following is a list of areas of concern which have not been addressed adequately by the SSA Te~hnical Evaluation Group and should be studied in more depth:

.. ::.; • ..,..., " '....'--. .. V ~-.,, ., ~··· C".J

.. -.· '· '\.' :, . - •-: f\ j . . . : ; :::·

l-..:. I • ~ _ - '. • .' _,i :J \

Co,-,·} 00 r---: cc1·..--:::~,::::.. Only Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664 .~ "- V ~

(b )( 1) (b)(3)

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664

d. A total look at an integrated MPS using the SSA has not been performed to verify that the overa 11 concep_t is sound. This study should also be performed.

3. Verification of 6.5 Star Magnitude Sensitivity. The ability to modify the SSA to detect 6.5 magnitude or greater is so important to this concept that this group feels this capability must be demonstrated or thoroughly evaluated through study.

4. Error Budget. Some of the pointing MPS error budget are inter­dependent on the star sensor and the panoramic camera. One example is the error in determining the interlock angle between the star sensor line of sight and the panoramic line of sight. This error is significant and needs further study for the SSA concept.

B. SCHEDULE

Meeting the SV-17 schedule is a concern since commitment to a metric p~n program regardless of its form has seen so muc~ delay. The current S schedule is tight and further delay will jeopardize SV-17 effectivity. Changing to the SSA concept is an even more difficult schedule problem because of (1) concept study required, (2) procurement process delays involved, and (3)- manufacturing lead time for the SSA (23 months from go-ahead). The s§hedule shown in Figure I-A is that currently being _ pursued for the S sensor. Additionally, the SSA delivery schedule of · 23 months is superimposed as is the 27 month Hexagon Program MOD IID procurement time.

't. MPS INTEGRATION

Regardless which star sensor is used, an effective MPS integrating contractor is required. At this point, only Perkin-Elmer is considered to have the total understanding of the MPS concept and hai the overall resources to assure success. This group feels that Perkin-Elmer is the only integrator which the government would be able to incentivize based directly on meeting OMA overall mapping requirements. Perkin-Elmer also would best be able to respond to new problems or requirements as the integrator.

PART V

A. CONTRACT APPROACHES

1. ·, Taking into consideration the management concerns and the overall program schedule as set forth in the preceding parts, this group evaluated

(b )( 1) (b)(3)

/

\C/\\ various cootract approaches that could be taken to effect a competition for the procurement of a star sensor sub-system. The basic ground rules and assumptions used were:

a. Decision defining approach required by 1 April 1976.

b. Star Sensor Sub-System hardware_ required by 1 July 1978 to avoid jeopardizing overall Hexagon Program schedule.

c. Launch date for SV-17 - Fall 1980.

2. Each approach was evaluated in detail and a list of pros and cons prepared for each. The approaches were:

a. Issue an RFP to all qualified sources, approximately 12, to provide a sub-system that would meet DMA's performance requirement. This approach was evaluated at some length but proved to be unfeasible based on the lengthy procurement cycle and production schedule (see Figures I-8 and I-H).

b. Procure SSA from Bendix-Itek as a directed sub to P-E and have P-E integrate sub-systems hardware. Even though the approach is not a competitive procurement, it was evaluated and again proved to be unfeasible not only from a technical and schedule3standpoint, but 1t would be impossible to justify exclusion of the S sub-system from consideration (see Figures I-C and I-H).

c. Procure SSA direct from Bendix-Itek and provide to P-E as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for integration. Again, even thou~h this approach is not a competitive procurement, it was evaluated and again proved to be unfeasible not only for the- same reasons as stated in para b., above, but the government would be accepting full responsibility

~hat the total system worked (see Figures I-D and I-H).

d. Issue an RFP to LMSC, as integrator, to provide a sub-system that would meet DMA's performance requirements. This approach showed · merit over the first three approaches; however, from an overall management standpoint it was also considered to be unfeasible as it would be impos­sible to incentivize the accuracy of the sub-system by itself (see Figure I-E). In addition, the procurement cycle required to effect this approach still presents an overall schedule problem (see Figure I-H) and is not the most preferred approach.

e. Issue an RFP to P-E, as integrator, to provide a sub-system on a make or buy decision that would meet DMA's performance requirements. This approach, in addition to effecting a competition, was considered to be the most feasible of all, not only for the management concerns but provides a better understanding of overall systems requirements (see Figure 1-E). However. even with this approach the total procurement cycle presents a slight problem (see Figure I-H).

. 6 ::, ,_~--" ~.:1~ ,~ \'.,.:lrt

.. .-. -· Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664rtrcl

,., . ' " ti , 'I : '.,~

.',' i l "' 1J J J

t .; ,.; ZZJ. Only

Approved for Release: 2019/05/01 C05118664

• t ', t . I, ' ' ' :e.; ,-,,,,; 15>:_,, i· 7 ~ \J L ,, .. i L t ~-- '

The group also prep~red a pro and con chart and procurement timeline for procuring the S sub-system from P-E ~s a selected source to compare total time required to deliver a sub-system on or before 1 Jul 78 (see Figures I-G and I-H). Of all approaches evaluated, this is the most

· feasible based not only on the overall schedule considerations but it also increases the confidence in satisfying the DMA requirements.

B. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the above, the group concluded that P-E is the only contractor that can integrate the sub-sy~tem/pan camera §ombination into the Hexagon metric pan camera system and that the S and SSA systems cannot be competed effectively until the additional concept study of the SSA is completed. Therefor2, the conclusions and recom­mendations are to procure the s3 sub-system from P-E as a selected source or recognize an overall program schedule impact if competition of a sub-system is effected.

7

)>

1:g a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

.,·-·~\ lJ

,-.0, I ;.· -, .. L i ._ '·' J. , r ::t ti I _. ... t rl__

I

EVALUATION OF

THE MANAGEMENT CONCERNS AND CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR PROCURING A

STAR SENSOR SUB-SYSTEM

25 MARCH 1976

•

i':11 .• ~- ·, , ..... fJ I t· .. ··, ~; \K a L.- t~, i--·l r. LJ ill.•,;~

Handle Via f)'t.r.rrn Ar~; u U [JVJ }1 ~~a

Control System Only

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

0

DATE

11 MAR 76

)> 'O 'O --, 0 < 12 MAR 76 CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 15 MAR 76 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00

I ffi .15 MAR 76 .I>,.

25 MAR 76

---~-~~----·--·-fi ·.1 · .. ; : • · ·:, : · < :-, • 1 j ( ;~ ' ~- • t ·. . • . . / ' (: : " ~ ....: ...J ~ '- ,.I 1.. ..... J '-'-' ,., ... _.J, -" t~

/'---._\

I SUMMARY OF EVENTS

EVENT

PRELIMINARY REPORT OF STAR SENSOR ASSEMBLY EVALUATION

GROUP TO MAJ GEN KULPA

INITIAL MEETING WITH COL ANDERSON AND COL CAMPBELL

REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF MANAGEMENT/CONTRACTING

EVALUATION GROUP

APPROVAL OF SELECTED COMMITTEE MEMBERS/CHARTER BY

MAJ GEN KULPA AND FORMULATION OF COMMITTE~ CONCERNS I

AND ASSIGNMENTS FOR EVALUATION

FINAL REPORT OF STAR SENSOR ASSEMBLY EVALUATION GROUP

MANAGEMENT/CONTRACTING' EVALUATION GROUP REPORT TO

MAJ GEN KULPA

"

,I

Handle Via f-lt"JTf/f 't; I fl !fl ,. df I 71 J# 1 !n !J1~ , tr J..,T l,1 ,- ~ 7. ,s- ;r_ " f<ii_ tl r,\j· V ~.... , . t ,:Ii !.

fut ~~~JL~t r.~~+.~nl Svstem Only

)> 'O 'O --, 0 < CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q)

, CJ)

CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

0 r -" _n_ ,· ., , ·• .• ·, , .. , ;:· ·J

f: ~? .. ~,,. ', · • ,i ·1 • F·; ,., I & ~~ ,i, .:i, W i.J V : . .i ;,d1.:J f:l

,,-._,

✓

TEAM COMPOSITION

NAME OFFICE DISCIPLINE )> )>

"O "O "O "O ..., ..., 0 0 < < CD PROCUREMEN:T CD C. C. - -0 0 ..., ..., ;:a ;:a CD CD CD PROCUREMENT CD Q) Q) CJ) CJ) CD CD

I\) I\) 0 0 ...... SP-7 ENGINEERING ...... co co -- --0 0 0, . 0, -- --0 0 ...... ...... () MAJ D. RASPET SP-7 I ENGINEERING () 0 0 0, 0, ...... ...... ...... ...... 00 00 0) 0) 0) 0) .I>,. .I>,.

~

-----0'" "-"

-----(..0

~~"',i:,': )) ...... •( "?' l:( 4i I fl i..12:~ ~ !·J _>,J ~, ... • lLJ ;,

Handle Via

D ~ " ~ r'1 ': tl ~J-1 l ·, 1( , . i..· \ i::t, ..J•i~.., ....

"-" Control System Only

)> "O "O --, 0 < CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00

·O) 0) .I>,.

/_,\ \.._.)

•

•

•

•

•

•

r tj ." 4 ,. ..; \ / , J ,..,., •, J

1_; ,, - ' .' ·, ' ' lb' ·1 t. ,. , '' ·1 i;..:b,,J. t_;,.1 ,:,i!....Ju

I OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

)>

INITIAL SELECTED SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR s3 "O "O --, 0 < CD C. -MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 0 --,

;:a CD CD Q)

• CJ)

CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS CD . . I\) 0 ..... co --0

COMMENTS ON SSA EVALUATIGN GROUP REPORT 0, --0 ..... I

() . 0 0,

CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS. ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

"

,I

~ n,. · tj : l t ~ 'i . f . ·" '"d ft t.i ...:,:7 . J I m G _ .t N i • I

Handle Via

n \!;,, irs ~- n !\ "l :.: • '": ... i I •

!aii.:a1111li&1i.1.l'

Control System Only

)> "O "O ,..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

{ ,. -~.t

i.'>....._,.,./

APPROX TIME

SUMMER 1974

FALL 1974

FALL 1974

FEB 1975

.• 'l __ ..... _........ ·•··-· ... -··;-·- ....... , ; i .. ,.. ( . : ," , ' :• '. ' ~ . ,' • ~ / • ' ' l . • J

...... WI/ .. :i.. l..~ '"' J --~· - .. .j •-·" J I

I BACKGROUND

ACTNITY

SAFSP. SAFSS, DMA, AEROSPACE, LMSC, PE REVIEW OF CONFIGURATION TRADES

SAFSP COMPLETED REVIEW OF S-CUBED CONCEPT

SAFSS REQUESTED STUDY OF lflGH RISK CONCERNS .

SAFSS STATED s3 SHOULD BE A I

BLOCK IV CONSIDERATION

"

,I r.. ~1 <", 1, • l £ ff ' I' -{ l 7 '1 t~,j~ t•i >, .I J l

RES UL TS/CONCLUSIONS

(1)

)> "O "O ..., 0 < (2) FILM TYPE STELLARS WOULD CD C.

REQUIRE EXTENSIVE FILM -0

PATH MODES ..., ;:a CD CD Q)

(3) S-CUBED CONCEPT MET " CJ) CD

. ACCURACY AND MINIMUM I\) 0

IM.PACT CRITERIA ..... co --0 0,

RECOMMENDED NOT TO PROCEED --0 ..... WITH S-GUBED DUE TO HIGH RISKS ()

0 0, ..... .....

STUDY INITIATED IN NOVEMBER 1974 ~ 0) .I>,.

STUDY. COMPLETION REVISED FROM 1 JULY 75 TO 1 JAN 76

Randle Vfa

rr rr B Y t f-)1 At~ ~~mtrol System Only .__....__...

)> i"O ,"O

a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD co Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

(

APPROX TIME

FEB 1975

NOV 1975

FEB 1976

........ ----····~-r: : ' I • I )' ·, .

LU-~ c..>:. .J \.'-1 L J. w

I BACKGROUND (Cont'd)

ACTIVITY

SAFSP REVIEWED SSA WITH L MSC/ CUSTOMER

NRO/DMA RE-EVALUATED SV-17 & 18 MAPPING REQUIREMENTS .

AND SAFSP REVIEWED s3 RISKS

,. MAPPING DECISION DELAYED UNTIL APRIL 1976

,I

Pl r .., .... ) ) , ' • ( , . 'f t' ., '·.J j. ·" 1·1 ·'· f I 1 t . f J I:! I

1i i:.:.;;·t,).

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

(1) CONCEPT DETERMINED TO BE SAME AS PROPOSED EARLIER )>

"O "O

(2) ------------------11 o'

(3) COST, SCHEDULE, AND PER- i

(1)

(2)

(3)

FORMANCE RECORD VERY rrcffi­POOR ~~el

..._... .._ ~

SAFSP NOW CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT RISK LOW

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 .....

SV.-17 & 18 Iv1A PPING CAME;RAS o CANCELLED ~

METRIC PAN CAPABILITY TO BE PURSUED TO INSURE SV -17 EFFECTIVITY

..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

(4) FUNDING LIMITED TO.< $1M UNTIL MAPPING REQUIREMENTS/ ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED

LIMITED FUNDING COMMITTED TO PRESERVE SV-17 EFFECTIVITY

Hand.le Vfa °'--- . t I u,, L,.1 I': .· ... •, E ~!fr""':;a 111 fj r r·~ -..

'!l ' h • ·• I cJU:!..,t.1.J~-J

/' - " . t ) "-'·'

•

)> • "O "O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co • --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) • 0) .I>,.

.---------... ·--·-- ~·, - ( \ .~ ... ,1·:1

~i LJ ,_-4 i. L_ ... ~'. ~ .. ~· !* ;~~ f ~ ~J

rl INITIAL SELECTED SOURCE CONSIDERATIONS

s3 WAS THE ONLY GONCEPT VERIFIED BY DETAILED STUDY

PERKIN-ELMER HAD BEST CHANCE TO MEET SYSTEM PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

STUDIED OVERALL PROBLEM FOR TWO YEARS

-COULD BE INCENTIVIZED FOR OVERALL PERFORMANCE

HAD 900 MAN FORCE AVAILABLE FOR UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS

DURING DELAY IN MAKING MAPPING DECISION ONLY PE HAD CAPABILITY TO .

CONTINUE MPS STUDY WITHIN FUNDING LIMITS I

SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS MADE OPEN COMPETITION SEEM UNWISE

ri f1 f.:-~:Y.ff SJ til 1.1.

"

Handle Vfa ...._ in.vJ_~ ~:frj I r Fi k1 ~!

, 1, ,1 t·;l •·' ~' L~ ~ l'.... ... ;Ju \1 if·

Control System Only

)> "O "O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD

' el CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

C) ...-------·--,~ ,. ----i, ~·1 .- . .' ! ! , 7 .•, :'1 '." ~ •. ,; · .. I

f. ·,•~ L · •• , ',. ·• ! ('' , • • r ' ... r'

ti ~ • .::i L.,: ~-' \~ i..c .1 W U

I

MANAGEMENT CONCERNS

•

)> SSA CONCEPT REQUIRES FURTHER STUDY 'O • 'O ...,

0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a SCHEDULES CD • CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... INTEGRATION co • --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .i:,..

"

...L..---- .... . ,,., ,.,, .,:: . -:, :·. ,- • '· .! .. y,"' · · ,.~ t··' ..-.. I f ·. :-~ .. V \

1

t .• ; • ~1 xS L,

r,; L.u~

j

Hano.le Vfa -. f'tl ~. u r· ~. -~ ~ ~': l r. . \ , . .,, f 4 1 , , , r, ~ .1 il r. , . 11 v... h •

. U i;I 11,u!DIAli ~• Control Syatem Only

)> 'O 'O ..., 0 < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q)

.• CJ)

CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .i:,..

)> "O "O --, 0 < CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

/ \ .! . .._, •. /

•

• • •

__ ...... ----;•: ,~ : ..,. I• 'f !

r .: ·· ;"' ' · I ,. • , · • 1 I ii :.J.:..,1. L-✓ L.J \..J..; .. ~ L:.:t ,.

,I

PRUDENT SSA DEVELOPMENT REQU!RES FURTHER STUDY

□INTEGRATION NEED

)> "O

POWER "O - --, 0 < CD C.

- BEAT DISSIPATION -0 --,

;:a

DATA RATES CD - CD Q) CJ) CD

6. 5 MAGNITUDE CAPABILITY NEEDS DEMONSTRATION I\) 0 ..... co

CALIBRATION TECHNIQUE --0 0, • --0 .....

TOTAL INTEGRATED SYSTEM I () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

~

.,, f' ,~ , .. ,.. c .,, tu·, fJ I ►' _.,.;.,.. r '• ,' f,..., ! I t ' ~U..--t.

li·1.r1.:LJ.L\ ... ,.1~.t

i' I / ;, • ; :: ,['; '.' 1 ,..,.,.,... iJ l, .,.1 £~ t< - f ~ I ~ -1

Control Syctc~ Only

)> "O -"O a < CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD , ,

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00

'0) 0) .I>,.

r· • I t,·, ·1 \ 17' JiJ.£..~

{ ·, . ,. , 't· ' ~ 7 ,. ., ' . ,·, .. h I ·' ·1'~ .. , ··1

\.. ·• ~ ,. . ; 2 > ~- . .' ~-= -~-' 1..t j :....:1 ii

-~

SCHEDULE IS A PROBLEM

SSA CONCEPT ANALYSIS REQUIRES TIME AND MONEY

PROCUREMENT PROCESS

MANUFACTURE

TOTAL SYSTEM TESTING '

. DYNAMICS OF HEXAGON PROGRAM/MAPPING REQUIREMENTS

I! ,:, r\~i •:''1· iJ k.L.~ !.

"

Handle Vf~ -.., i-"I f, /~ :::.·• I"" ~ F'\ !'\ j (.~ \ > >! n /: ..,;.I .., .,_;1; ... ., .. :a

Control System Only

/•·"~.,

)> "O "O --, 0 < CD C. -0 --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD , ,

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 ·a, 0) .I>,.

./-..., u

S-CUBED

ENGINEERING MODEL

QUALIFICATION MODEL

SV-17 FLIGHT MODEL

. SSA DELIVERY

HEXAGON MOD I I

Figure I-A

q:pp :i;;n;;,cp ! H

I SCHEDULE- COMPARISON

1976 I 1977 JIFIMIAIMIJIJIAISIOINID JfFIMIAIMIJ

DESIGN/PARTS PROCUREMENT/MANUFACTU

ST

1978 0 IN ID I JI F IM I A IM IJ I J I A IS IO IN ID

SSVM COMPAT

QUAL TESTS

SSVM VALIDATION

A. HISTALL OH SV-17

(1 FEB SHI~ TQ WCFO) .-----------------------''-----23 MONTH DELIVERY FROM GO-AHEAD

27 MONTH DELIVERY FROM GO-AHEAD . . I

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

I I

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' --,

;:a CD CD Q)

.CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .i:,.

C) ,,,...., ___ .. .,.,., ... _, __ f' i 1 /·. -, i ; .·; : . , r. ; ,:~-.., I ·.'. ·7 · - ·. : ,Ji,~/J~ t .. "·•-! ·,,J.'JJb I

I

INTEGRATION

MPS REQUIRES AN EFFECTIVE INTEGRATOR

MUST UNDERSTAND TOTAL PROBLEM

MUST BE ABLE TO WORK UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS

.,.....-.... MEETING 5 SEC POINTING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD

. BE INCENTIVIZED

"

.I

LJ1 _ 1:, ;;, t' t/ -if" ·R , '\.,, , • .1·, r .. ~1

Ll..:-~

Handle Via f"":i'."~:'~,c'~ r.\ f\,g

' · I 1-r. • · - l ! J ;Ii) \1 i." t ,,1 I'.\ l:\·1 ~'.J IJ L-i'JI :.1 ¥ L: " .. r. J

Control System Only

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' --,

;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .i:,.

)> "O . ,"O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a

, CD

CD 'Q)

CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

.~ , l

'J

I

f. ~ ";" \'.": : .·'. .C:., ·H' ~ :.u, Ji. t.>' • . 1 '··" /.J .J L.1 J

CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS

• GROUND RULE~ AND ASSUMPTIONS

•

•

CONTRACT· APPROACHES TO BE TAKEN TO EFFECT A COMPETITION OF A STAR

SENSOR SUB-SYSTEM:

OPEN COMPETITION TO ALL QUALIFIED SOURCES

SSA AS DIRECTED SUB TO PERKIN-ELMER

SSA PROVIDED AS GFE TO PERKIN-ELMER

LMSC AS INTEGRATOR AND PROVIDE A SUB-SYSTEM

PERKIN-ELMER AS INTEGRATOR AND PROVIbE A SUB-SYSTEM ON A MAKE-OR-BUY

DECISION

CONTRACT APPROACH WITHOUT COMPETITION

SYSTEM AS SELECTED SOURCE

PERKIN-ELMER PROVIDE s3

• PROCUREMENT LEADTIMES

.•

,I

91 r1 ✓, r • ",/ ;<'" I "\ ,"'7 "";f 1',+r"f C : ·: ·· 't· ,• (':z ~-4 I t • . ·', i I . ~ · ; I 1 "" Y iJ"' l t:.:;.,, i.,.:.1 uh~ .t...J 1J

nana.1 e Via ,..., V' ~• -:·1 q ·"' r ll Ill "t,,: ., ; \' ' t : ~ f: ( ·; 1 ~: '. ~ ' '\ ; ~ '. ·,

~ s.! t ·.: -l • w .J .,t ai W

Cont=ol JJstc~ Only

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> 'O 'O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0

I 0, ...... ....... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

(·-\ \.,_,,I

f' ·1 , .. , ;- " ·-·- ,·. , ,. - . t ,' ' ",,." ,.•. •

• ; •. 1 ~-~ )~ , . .. , •!

ti h,:,;\ &.S .;_~ Vi:.:. :Ji li I

GROUNDRULES AND ASSUMPTIONS

• DECISION DEFINING APPROACH REQUIRED 1 APR 76

• STAR SENSOR SUB-SYSTEM HARDWARE REQUIRED 1 JUL 78

• LAUNCH DATE FOR SV-17 - FALL 80

"

.I, ____________ .,_,._• .. -.'". """'"ti

~,:~'f'~

f,j /Jii•

Handle Via 0 t,, ... ;,r," i" lli,, u V t L.! J '}A f.J

Control System Only

)> 'O 'O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> "O . "O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00

. 0) 0) .I>,.

,,.----.,_

(~) I-'., ,· .;-r· f

l~ t.t .i ~

,·., .'J

t..i, • J '..f ;_ •• L.J J ~

ISSUE AN RFP TO ALL QUAL&IED SOURCES TO PROVIDE A SUB-SYSTEM THAT WOULD

MEET DMA 1S PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PRO'S

• POTENTIAL FOR LOWER COST OF • SUB-SYSTEM

·• OPEN COMPETITION • • BROADEN TECHNICAL BASE • • MINIMIZES POTENTIAL DISPUTE

FROM EITHER P-E OR BENDIX/ITEK; • OR OTHER CONTRACTORS

• RETAIN TECHNICAL CONTROL OF • SOURCE SELECTION .

•

"

Figure I-B ,\

b O . . < 1 '1 I • ·: .. , .,. ) I. .

bi-;}..

CON'S

)> "O

MAY SURFACE ADDITIONAL "O ..., 0

TECHNICAL PROBLEMS < CD C. -0

POSSIBLE SECURITY PROBLEMS ..., ;:a CD CD

REQUIRES MORE PROCUREMENT Q)

.• CJ)

CD

LEAD TIME I\) 0 ..... co

BECOMES GFE TO P-E WITH ALL --0 0,

ATTENDANT PROBLEMS THERETO --0 ..... I ()

0

ADDITIONAL INTEGRATION COSTS 0, ..... FOR BOTH ASSOCIATE CONTRACTORS~

. 0)

INCREASES COMPLEXITY OF TECHN~ALINTERFACESAND SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

Hand.le Via

B ,. r. r.• ... IJ'I n ~ ... J ~ . ,; ,. . . . r~' ',. i r-, ' ~ ' I/ •: I ~-: ! {. . , u ~-a:b j ~ JJ\\ ii\

Control System Only

.I>,.

)> "O . "O a < CD C. -0 --, ;:a CD CD

- Q) CJ)

~ I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

r·~ \,J

•

........___...,. -----~I . ' .: : .~ ., .... -.· , ' . .

.u ~:.: 9-.., ... \ L~- .. , . ..1 1W t.... J i...J

PROCURE STAR SENsoi ASSEMBLY ,(BENDIX-ITEK) AS DIRECTED SUB TO P-E

AND P-E INTEGRATE SUB-SYSTEM HARDWARE

PRO'S

POSSIBILITY OF USING HRP FOR INTE­GRATION EFFORT-AVOIDS ADDITIONAL

·COSTS

..

•

•

•

• 0

•

CON'S

VERY RISKY FROM A TECHNICAL• SCHEDULE AND COST POINT OF VIEW DUE TO LACK OF FULL SUPPORT BY P-E

DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE -TO INCENTIVIZE PERFORMANCE

VERY TOUCHY INTERFACE PROBLEM WITH SUB

MORE COSTLY

POSSIBLE SCHEDULE PROBLEM

IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF s3

Figure 1-C ,\

Handle Via '--.---. ~~ r:, ,· .i ... x \· -t. !, ._. ~ ') 1 1 "I , ... ~, · -;r ., Ll w.:.,l . ., u , , to .:: trl h I ~ ~f[ ~,, n ___ r.j

,. .. I • r' r • U r1b~irus

Control System Only

)> "O "O --, 0 < CD C. -0 --, ;:a CD CD

, el CD - -I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

_. \ ( ;

\_.'

rl

-------~ ..... •-·• ---·----t~ ; i \ ' .. , J '.: t'

L ~A,, i. c:-· L£' •-" }k .... L.J 11

PROCURE STAR SENSOR ASSEMBLY (BENDIX-ITEK) DIRECT AND PROVIDE TO

P-E AS GFE FOR INTEGRATION

PRO'S

e GOVERNMENT RETAINS TECHNJCAL CONTROL OF SOURCE SELECTION

o GOVERNMENT MAINTAINS MANAGEMENT CONTROL OVER ASSOCIATE CONTRACTOR

o POSSIBILITY OF USING HRP FOR INTEGRATION EFFORT - AVOIDS. ADDITIONAL COSTS

,I

"

CON'S

• GOVERNMENTACCEPTSFULL RESPONSIBILITY THAT TOTAL SYSTEM WORKS

• DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO · INCENTIVIZE PERFORMANCE

• LESS THAN FULL SUPPORT BY P-E . • VERY TOUCEY INTERFACE PROBLEM

BET\VEEN P-E/BENDIX-ITEK

• TWO PROCUREMENT ACTIONS REQUIRED

• POSSIBLY MORE COSTLY

• POSSIBLE INCREASE FOR CLAIMS BASED UPON LATE OR DEFICIENT GFE

• IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY EXCLUSION OF s3

Figure 1-D r f.1 'f Vi l • , • r .- i,'1: !J I ~/d ... -: . . ..; I • CJ

Handle Vfa - . I'?", " ~ r-: n fJ " r. ..

~ '1 , : 1 : • ~ r •. ,i iii ~ .. )A . ._ \ ' , . i : ~ 1 ,\ '4 / . . I l 1 ,, ' j ', l '~ ,. Ji U .... , nd li.1.1 J

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

. _ .. __ .... ____ , ........... ~ .... ------~-. f ••· .l · r ; ' ' f .... ,

·"-.~;' .·, w,I '--~ -~ .,l, ~-- ' ,.,/ .._;;.:.... ,,.·i i.'.~i i:,

ISSUE AN RFP TO LMSC (AS INTEGRATOR) TO PROVIDE A SUB-SYSTEM THAT WOULD ✓ .

MEET DMA'S PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PRO'S CON'S -)> • GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF SOURCE • GOVERNMENT LOSES TECHNICAL )>

"O "O

. "O

"O SELECTION CYCLE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF SUB-SYSTEM SOURCE ..., ..., 0 0

EFFORT SELECTION < < CD CD C. C. -- 0 0

GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL COST FOR INTEGRATION ..., ..., • • ;:a ;:a

SYSTEM AS GFE OF SUB-SYSTEM CD

CD CD CD Q) Q) •' CJ) CJ) CD CD ELIMINATES POSSIBLE INTERFACE ADD MORE COMPLEXITY TO LMSC/PE

.. • • I\)

I\)

CONFLICTS BETWEEN PE/BENDIX-0

0 INTERFACE ..... ..... co co ITEK ---- 0 0 0, 0, •• IMPOSSIBLE TO INC ENTIVIZ E THE ---- 0 0 ..... .....

L MSC EXPERIENCED AS INTEGRATOR ACCURACY OF,SUB-SYSTEM BY ITSELF () () • 0 0 0, 0, ..... .....

WOULD HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE BOTH ..... ..... • 00

00 0) 'O) THE SUB-SYSTEM AND PAN CAMERA 0) 0) .I>,. .I>,.

INDIVIDUALLY

• FAIR AND OBJECTIVE COMPETITION OF SELECTING A SUBCONTRACTOR WOULD BE DIFFICULT

~

Figure I-E ,I

1-r-. ~--, --fi"t-, -f,-":?(f;__!_•lt'"'-, ;')-,-,-p-lf'.~---,]

', .. ~ !i_ f 1· ,........- -· ., it· I ,~ _ ~ Ll ~·: . ~ ~ r ~. .., ,

Ifa ~, rJ lo ·7 f ·,· ""-.. ~- ·; ,-~· ~· ,.., ;~ ~:,, ··, . ; ji

' . ""' ' Ccn ~-,;J <:" :: :; ··::, Only

)> "O "O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

~

--•-·--..,.-,.__.,. -;: '"1 .. : .:: ""'; ~r-• :J ,....; _., 1 ... ... . , ; , 1 ·' J Lt S,,f ,,) : ', I ' ' • \ I ,., ,J ~ .. ..i.. t:..,, .1 \..:J !.., ..,; L.J ..i

ISSUE AN RFP TO P-E (AS IfTEGRA TOR) TO PROVIDE A SUB-SYSTEM, ON A MAKE-OR-BUY .

DECISION, THAT WOULD MEET DMA'S PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PRO'S

• GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF SOURCE SELECTION CYCLE ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORT

• GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROVIDING THE SYSTEM AS GFE

• · ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PROBLEM

• APPROVAL OF MAKE-OR-BUY, GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT LOSE TECHNICAL CONTROL OF SUB-SYSTEM SOURCE SELECTION .

• . MORE CLEARLY DEFINED SYSTEM PERFOR-MANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTAIN REQUIRE-MENT

• POSSIBILITY OF USING HRP FOR INTEGRATION EFFORT

• BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OVERALL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

• POTENTIAL FOR LOWER COST

.I

Figure I-F fF.t 1·••a•·,:_,. l~ . .)I w .i..l,

•

•

•

•

CON'S

POSSIBLE INTERFACE PROBLEM WITH BENDIX-ITEK

NOT AS EXPERIENCED AS LMSC IN THE INTEGRATOR ROLE

FAIR AND OBJECTIVE COMPETITION OF SELECTING A SUBCONTRACTOR WOULD BE DIFFICULT

I

Handle ViO:

E 'ii rt ,'7 ~ n i'l. n , . • . ' t '; •; • . ../ . ' • . .. " \ f \{ , ' r . ' . 1l L ~)u f~ ~ u

Control Systom Onl

..

)> "O "O ..., 0 < CD C. -0 ..., ;:a CD CD

, el CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD

'Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00

'0) 0) .I>,.

--·~--..... , ···- ·--~·"··- ... ~----.... -··---1 ~ ! . , ••• < ., ~. J '

·~--,/ f' • . ' ' ' . . ' M LJ..., .A • ..J \J.;,..., - ,. . . i •

PROCURE s3 SUB-SYSTEM FROM P-E AS SELECTED SOURCE

I PRO'S CON'S

1e GOVERNMENT RECEIVES BENEFIT OF EFFORT ACCOMPLISHED TO DATE ON s3

• POSSIBLE PROTEST BY BENDIX­ITEK OR OTHER CONTRACTORS

• ELIMINATES THE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PROBLEM

e MORE CLEARLY DEFINES SYSTEM PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITY TO ATTAIN REQUIREMENT

• AVOIDS ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR INTEGRATION EFFORT BY USE OF HRP

• ACHIEVES BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF OVERALL SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

e REDUCES PROCUREMENT LEADTIME BY APPROXIMATELY 4 MONTHS

• PROTECTS TOTAL PROGRAM SCHEDULE

• GREATLY SIMPLIFIES INTERFACE PROBLEMS

• INCREASES CONFIDENCE IN SATISFYING THE DMA REQUIREMENT

• EFFECTIVELY USES AVAILABLE SUSTAINING LABOR

,I

Figure 1-G FnJ ;· ,, u r•if'1 t/ I U·dlt , · ' 1 0 · '· 1

!!;t, ·t; . •'::,. r -. f'. L. ,

•

. ~

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ..... co --0 0, --0 ..... () 0 0, ..... ..... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ)

. CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .i:,..

0 ··---·--· : • l ( I ·. f ',, 1 .f

t • I.• ' . ; . . ' ; r ,1

~:!-~ t.>t.,.J'_.;1;!...AL.i1J.J

I PROCUREMENT LEADTIMES (IN MONTHS)

SSA SSA AS OPEN

COMPETITION

AS DIRECTED

SUB TO P-E GFE TO P-E

PREPARE PROC ACTION REQUEST

ISSUE RFP

RECEIVE CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

NEGOTIATION CYCLE

CONTRACT PROCESSING UP TO CONT RAC TOR SIGNATURE

SIGNATURE/ DISTRIBUTION CYCLE ~WARD

TOTAL PROCUREMENT CYCLE

FROM CONTRACT AWARD TO FIRST DELIVERY:

- SSA/ SSA MODIFIED - s3

*LIMITED COMPETITION = 2 MOS **4 MOS = DEFINITIVE DOCUMENT .

1

1

3*

4

1

1

1 -12

23/27, 27/?

,I

1 1

1. 1 2

3 2

2 2

1 1 I

1 1·

1 1 -9½*** 9

• 23/27 23/27

.-. :1 , ·r •.,:, .. ·.•l -1· ·:"I. /!">J ,~-;11

., ' I' ,, · '' /°l 1

1 1\10 = CHANGE ORDER I **':'WITH CHANGE ORDER COULD SHORTEN CYCLE

Figure 1-H SOMEWHAT

(1!''i,;.~7 ,:. ; ... 9 /i. .. ii,~/;} IJi..!.u~ w~ l::.tu.l,1.;..r .

LMSC OR P-E AS

SELECTED SOURCE

INTEGRATOR

1

1 2

2

2

1

1

1

8½***

23/27

.,,.

~

s3 AS

SELECTED SOURCE -6'

O/½

0/0

0/0

_1½/0

1/Q

1/0

1. / .!. L2

4/1**

. "O

a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .i:,..

27 27

Handle Vfa '---

B, ,- r., n r1 R lli ... · ' : :: r Ii ~~ r •.

·J,: i.;J ~ :'.~ 1 ... t: , . ' ' ·, . l r r• ; iJ ,. " J ... ,.:1 ...

)> "O "O a < CD • C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00

'0) 0) .I>,.

I,~'-, -., Sl!CRE'F-/H , .

COMMENTS ON COMMITTEE REPORT I •

I

QUESTION "OFF THE SHELF" DESCRIPTION . ONLY THE OPTICS ARE COMPLETE

ELECTRONICS NECESSARY TO DETECT 6,5 Mv STARS ARE NOT OFF THE SHELF

REQUIREMENTS FO.R ADDEDc=J

INCORPORATING WILL IMPACT SV POWER SUBSYSTEM AND HEAT DISSIPATION TELEMETRY

ADDITIONAL STUDY REQUIRED VERIFY 6,5 Mv CAPABILITY

INTEGRATION oFc=J

· CALIBRATION TECHNIQUE

DETAILED ERROR BUDGET

~ J:' r R r T / H ,I

...

HANDLE VIA BYEMAN CONTROL SYSTEM ONLY

..

)> "O "O a < CD C.

o' ..., ;:a CD CD Q) CJ) CD

I\) 0 ...... co --0 0, --0 ...... () 0 0, ...... ...... 00 0) 0) .I>,.

'St" co co 00 T""

T"" IJ') 0 ()

T""

0

---IJ') 0

---0) T""

0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

.2 "O Q)

> e Q. Q. <(

~

,r-•, .. l 1 ··-.. .. ,?'

•

•

•

•

•

~

r--~.

I ,. - __ _.... .. ..---.. ·----•-

!~ ·. :· ◄ ' ! . '~ ,;~ :7 --.. --,,,;....;-, ----. -. -..!. ... ~t..~-.i t.JL.J i...J,.,;..ii.,;;;J I.J

CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS

P-E SHOULD INTEGRATE THE SS/PAN CAMERA COMBINATION INTO THE METRIC PAN SYSTEM (MPS)

OPEN OR LIMITED COMPETITION OF SUB-SYSTEM WOULD JEOPARDIZE OVERALL PROGRAM SCHEDULE

SSA CONCEPT REQUIRES ADDITIONAL STUDY WHICH WOULD JEOPARDIZE OVERALL PROGRAM SCHEDULE

OVERALL PROGRAM/PROCUREMENT SCHEDULE DICTATES. SELECTION OF s3 SUB-SYSTEM AS A SELECTED SOURCE

IF COMPETITION OF SUB-SYSTEM IS REQUIRED:

- P-E SHOULD PROVIDE BASED ON A MAKE-OR-BUY DECISION

- RECOGNIZE AN OVERALL PROGRAM SCHEDULE IMPACT

,I

!!'.l:rJll 0 Vi '.i r·,. ,.

)

'St" co co 00 T""

T"" IJ') 0 ()

T""

0

---IJ') 0

---0) T""

0 N

Q) Cf) Cll Q)

Q) 0::: I...

.2 "O Q)

> e Q. Q. <(