Joint ARL/ASC PET CY4 Planning and Implementation Policy (DRAFT ONLY)

To: ARL and ASC CTA and PEI Leads

From: E. J. Grabert, NCSA Academic Lead, ARL PET

Dana Hoffman, OSC Academic Lead, ASC PET

Date: March 11, 1999

Subject: Joint ARL/ASC PET CY4 Planning and Implementation Process

As a follow-up to our Joint Review and Planning Workshop in February, ARL MSRC PET and ASC MSRC PET have agreed to emphasize continuing a coordinated PET program for their two centers and to set a goal for achieving program-wide accomplishments for the HPCMP. As we enter our fourth year of the program, both ARL and ASC will evaluate all planned activities, focusing on the program, user requirements and ROI (Return on Investment).

ARL has solicited proposals on a yearly basis, whereas ASC modified Statements of Work (SOWs) to accomplish newly established PET initiatives and to manage the budget process. Although the contract periods are not in sync, we are jointly soliciting proposals for our fourth year of the program (CY4). This will facilitate achieving the objectives and goals of the Joint Review and Planning Workshop and help to establish a future model for PET after CY5. Each CTA and PEI (Sci Vis, Training, Tools & I-C) Lead is responsible for this ARL/ASC PET CY4 Planning and Implementation Process and its requirements.

This joint solicitation of proposals will determine the projects and support levels for CY4 & 5. Funding will be reallocated based on the outcome of the proposal process. In addition, Nichols plans to modify ASC subcontracts to accommodate subcontract line items (SLIN). SLINs will be incorporated whenever the costs associated with multiple projects, CTA support or other deliverables need to be isolated and monitored. All invoicing will be accomplished by SLIN. This change in practice will result in more effective expense control and reporting, and improved accountability. It is Nichols’ and ASC’s intention to close out CY3 in May by reallocating the remaining funding at this time, as appropriate. Therefore, we are requesting each university provide notification within two weeks if the remaining CY3 expenditures are expected to deviate significantly from the contract YTD monthly expense rate. For example, if Nichols is being invoiced at an average rate of $30K monthly, a subcontract’s authorized funding will be adjusted to accommodate $30K monthly for the remainder of CY3. Any invoice expected to exceed that amount during the remaining months of CY3 must be justified control and reporting, and improved accountability. .

Both ARL and ASC will hold each subcontract to a yearly budget proposed upon acceptance. The contract change order amount will be that of which is negotiated as a result of the estimates submitted in the project proposal. ARL PET contracts mechanism will remain the same as in CY3. ARL will issue SOWs for CY4 as it has in the past using contract change orders that will include the current SOW and the change order amount. The format of the SOW will be as in CY3.

Both ASC and ARL partners will follow the procedure set up by ARL using the Web-based template for project proposal submission. Appendix A is provided for this procedure. We hope to see the user community included, with the benefits articulated for DoD, as key element considerations described within the proposals. The following is the schedule and dates due for the proposals submission:

March 11^th - CY4 Planning and Implementation notice (this communiqué)

March 25^th- ASC CY3 Budget Spend Rate Notification Deadline

March 31st- ASC Proposal Due Date (ARL joint projects encouraged)

April 9^th- ASC Selection/Notification

April 12^th- ASC Nichols begins cost proposal process

May 7th- ARL Proposal Due Date (ASC joint projects encouraged)

May 12^th- ASC CY3 ends, CY4 begins (new subcontract awards)

May 31^st- ARL Selection/Notification

July 1^st- ARL Raytheon begins cost proposal process

August 19^th- ARL CY3 ends, CY4 begins (new subcontract awards)

APPENDIX A

The approach we are taking for the identification and development of PET Year 4 projects is to work with the PET partners to plan a multi-year effort. Typically, within DoD, the R&D community looks beyond the current year in proposing research objectives. While the work that PET is undertaking is not R&D in the typical sense, the PET program lends itself well to the R&D model of management.

The mechanism for developing this three-year plan is the work package, which consists of multiple projects running parallel, sequentially, or both. Over time, the work package, as a framework for projects, will remain and change only incrementally as the program moves into the future and project successes are realized. Of course, the active part of the work package is the project. Projects define (1) users to be supported, (2) objectives to be achieved, (3) collaborative efforts, and (4) resources required for execution, and (5) start and end points. The aggregation of projects objectives define the work package and how the work package supports accomplishment of thrust area goals.

Project conception, development and execution should reflect a long-term application of a critical mass of resources to address significant DoD issues in the thrust areas. The significant DoD issues in the thrust areas that PET addresses will continue to unfold.

Until then, the guidance for developing Year 3 proposals is to develop Work Packages and Projects documents that specifically address end user needs as currently known. For example, if an end user in the T&E community is attempting to understand why a water tanker has a tendency to turn over, PET can help the user to make use of HPC and visualization tools and techniques to study and evaluate the data.

Generally, a CTA or PEI (Programming Environment Initiative) will contribute projects to just one Work Package. However, the possibility that CTA and PEI efforts may span multiple Work Packages should not be overlooked. The Work Packages in conjunction with the Thrust Areas represent the Strategic level for PET. The component projects within the work packages represent the Tactical level for PET. For purposes of setting this approach in place it can be expected that there will actually be 30 or more Work Packages for ARL and ASC combined. The matrix below is a start and may or may not reflect the total number of Work Packages expected, but should provide an indication of the Thrust Areas that appear to be most appropriate to the CTA/PEI for project development.

For the ARL and ASC Project Year 4 Project Proposal Solicitation process, four thrust areas were presented: Test & Evaluation, Automatic Target Recognition, and Weapons, Warfighter Systems Design and Communications. These areas are broad and overarching and provide strategic focus for PET efforts. Almost certainly, there are more challenges in these Thrust Areas than PET is prepared to undertake without substantial growth. As the PET program matures and the role of PET in the thrust areas becomes better defined, the projects for Year 4 and beyond will take PET to the next level of support to the DOD scientist and engineer; that is projects will be supporting a community of users.

T&E ATR WPNS COMM

CCM X X X

CFD X X X

CSM X X X

FMS X X

IMT X X

CEA X X X

CEN X X X X

SIP X X X

S-V X X X X *

I-C X X X X *

Perf & Integr Tools X X X X *

Distance Lrng Tech X X X X *

Training X X X X *

* These PEI (crosscutting technology teams) would necessarily contribute to work packages for which a CTA has primary lead. However, there may be occasion when PEI has stand-alone work packages and projects. For example, where a PEI is discovering and/or developing a technology that is applicable to several areas and the PEI is pushing the technology to the CTA or to an end user, this may require separate work package and project proposals.

The Work Package format presents the overview of the CTA/PEI effort for a three-year window. Initially, it may be difficult to identify projects for Years X+1 and X+2. As we achieve a better understanding of the long-range requirements of the Thrust Areas it will be easier to identify specific projects. High, medium or low risk should be indicated for each project.

In most cases the proposal will be initiated by the CTA and PEI Leads. In some circumstances ARL PET could push the project proposal to the CTA/PEI Lead.

Attachment 1 is used to describe the Work Package. Upon completion and submission of the project forms the PET lead will work with the CTA/PEI Leads to establish the Work Packages. The format is shown here to promote understanding of the development of the program.

The information requested in Attachment 2, Project Proposal Template, does not differ substantially in terms of the information requirements provided in previous program years. An explanation of the Work Package Template and the Project Proposal Template follows:

Work Package Template:

* Description: The Work Package is a collection of like and related projects that advance the support to a particular need of a community of users. For example, a CFD-WPNS Work Package might contain several projects that address compressible flow studies required for missile and aircraft design or modification.

* Objective: Describe the results expected from the projects that form the work package.

* Year X Projects: enter an abbreviated project title for each of the projects that will be undertaken during the contract year.

* Year X+1 Projects: enter an abbreviated project title for each project that will be undertaken during the contract year.

* Year X+2 Projects: enter an abbreviated project title for each project that will be undertaken during the contract year.

Project Proposal Template

*The Work Package Title is composed of the CTA/PEI and Thrust area names. Ex.,

CFD-WPNS.

* The Point of Contact information is self-explanatory.

* The Project Description spells out in general terms what work will be undertaken and the general results expected.

* Contract Years Objective(s) is a more detailed examination of the results expected.

* Contract Year Deliverables are an accounting of what will be provided for the benefit of the end user.

* Customer/End Users is a straightforward statement identifying for whom are you doing the work. Identify the end-user Point of Contact.

* Benefit to the Warfighter documents the importance of the work to the end-goals of the HPC program and provides a means of quantifying the work to those outside of the MSRC.

* Project Dependencies and Scope identifies those other CTA/PEI who will be contributing to this project and the scope of their contribution. The CTA Leads will articulate how they will use the crosscutting technology teams to advance the CTA program.

* Risk Element is the CTA Lead’s appraisal of the difficulty or uncertainty associated with the components of work. This is expressed as a probability of achieving the results expected. Optimally, the Work Package and its component projects contain varying elements of risk.

Required Funding Level is the CTA Lead’s statement of the funding required to pursue this project. This does not include the costs incurred by other CTA/PEI who would identify the required funding level in their own project form for their contribution to this project. Note that the funding level required for Year X is firm, and the funding levels required for Years X+1 and X+2 are estimates subject to revision as the program moves into those years.

WORK PACKAGE TEMPLATE

INSTITUTION_________________________________________ DATE PREPARED: ___________

WORK PACKAGE TITLE_______________________________

WORK PACKAGE DESCRIPTION

WORK PACKAGE OBJECTIVE

YEAR X Projects

…

YEAR X+1 Projects

…

YEAR X+2 Projects

…

PROJECT PROPOSAL TEMPLATE

INSTITUTION NAME:

WORK PACKAGE TITLE:

PROJECT TITLE:

POC NAME:

EMAIL:

PHONE:

FAX:

CTA or PEI:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S):

DELIVERABLES:

CUSTOMERS/END USERS:

BENEFIT TO THE WARFIGHTER:

PROJECT DEPENDENCIES AND SCOPE:

RISK ELEMENT:

REQUIRED FUNDING LEVEL:

Year X:

Year X+1:

Year X+2: