“Now, technically it was never terminated, because among other things we didn’t want to have to go through all of the struggles of re-establishing it as a new start,” he acknowledged. “That meant that we kept the program budget line and program title of CAC2S. But in reality we terminated the program. Now look where we are with it today. Back in December, the program successfully got through the equivalent of a full rate production decision for Phase I. And today as we talk [Aug. 31, 2012], we are completing two-thirds of that Phase I fielding. We had previously fielded to the 3rd Marine Air Wing on the West Coast and today we are finishing 2nd Marine Air Wing fielding. And we’ve got one more wing to go. And the ‘bonus’ was that the program manager was able to write a check back to the Marine Corps for $41 million in Phase I savings because he executed his program so efficiently.

“And Phase II is on the fast track,” he added. “We just recently finished a yearlong demonstration and we are now down to a matter of weeks before we award a Phase II contract. And likewise I anticipate the program manager ultimately writing a check back to the Marine Corps for savings on Phase II.”

Summarizing the journey, he observed, “So whereas the CAC2S program was effectively terminated in 2008, in June 2012 the program was awarded the Department of the Navy’s ‘Program of the Year’ and the program manager was awarded ‘Acquisition Professional of the Year’ by the Marine Corps.

“LVSR is another great success story,” he said. “The program is completing fielding as we speak. And both MTVR and Lightweight 155 mm are finishing filling out their inventory objectives. In fact, we awarded the follow-on MTVR contract on Sept. 4, 2012.

“In terms of JLTV, I will leave the majority of the ‘programmatics’ to the Army, since they are the program lead,” he offered. “But these are very exciting times on the program, with the recent announcement of three teams for engineering and manufacturing development awards. So by about this time next year those three teams will be delivering prototypes for government test. And that’s another program that had been on the brink of termination, primarily because of the fact that the Congress and the services viewed the price tag of this vehicle as too costly. But industry has risen to the challenge; they heard the government; and working collaboratively while negotiating trades on requirements they are holding the lid on cost containment and promising to deliver vehicles for under $250,000 apiece. So we’re looking good on that program.”

Coming full circle, Taylor presented the example of the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), the Marine Corps’ follow-on to the EFV.

“ACV is another program that’s doing real well,” he said. “It is indicative of how the environment under which we have to operate is driving changes in the way we develop and manage programs. It is ‘the poster child,’ if you will, for the manner in which we are changing the way we do business. Instead of having the service requirements community define the requirement and then ‘throw it over the fence’ for development, we have worked very collaboratively right up front in having our engineers and ‘costers’ in the same room with the requirements generators. And essentially, as they mull over capability alternatives, those engineers and costers have been able to hang a price tag on the range of capabilities. So in an iterative sense, over time, the Marine Corps’ requirements generators – under the deputy commandant for Combat Development and Integration – have been able to essentially pick from a menu for a given capability across a range of capability versus cost. So they have actually been able to bound the estimated cost of the vehicle.”

Without mentioning specific requirements emerging from the recently conducted ACV analysis of alternatives (AoA), Taylor offered, “The bottom line here is that the estimate for this vehicle is not based on unbounded requirements. Instead it is requirements based on full knowledge of the price tag associated with those requirements. That’s a refreshing new way of doing business where the three elements of the triangle – requirements, resourcing, and acquisition – are all working together up front, iteratively, to try to define what the capability is and what it should cost. And that’s the environment from which this program emerged from its very beginnings.

“The AoA is now complete, and, in summary, it validated the need for the self-deploying amphibious capability,” he added. “And the program can now move forward as a result of that. So the Marine Corps is now in the process of bounding and firming up those specific requirements that they need along with this capability. And once we have that, hopefully sometime later this fall to early winter, we will be going out to engage industry, to assess their capability and to hear from them regarding their creative solutions for ultimately delivering this capability.”

Summarizing what he called “the long journey over the past five years,” Taylor said, “We have nursed these programs back to a state of health to where PEO programs are now firing on all cylinders. It is a great time in the life cycle of PEO Land Systems.”

Closing with one strategic objective as the elements of the program portfolio look toward the future, he concluded, “Given the environment that we are facing in the coming months and years ahead, if we have one strategic objective across all of our programs it is the pursuit of continuing to look for ways to operate and manage these programs more efficiently so that we can return savings to the resource sponsor.”

This article was first published in Marine Corps Outlook: 2012-2013 Edition.