Reiterating that the revised two-phase CAC2S strategy was “based on risk reduction and accelerated capability,” Masinsin explained that the program plan for obtaining a Phase 2 capability is through a competitive contract process that included an initial demonstration effort as a precursor to the Phase 2 Request For Proposals (RFPs).

“During the demonstration phase we asked offerors to provide a prototype to demonstrate capabilities as identified in our CPD,” he explained. “It’s a ‘come as you are party,’ if you will. Basically we said, ‘Here are our requirements. Under a fixed-price contract, build a prototype and demonstrate its capabilities against our CPD.’ The four contractors that participated in the demonstration phase include Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Thales–Raytheon.

“During the demonstration phase we asked offerors to provide a prototype to demonstrate capabilities as identified in our CPD,” he explained. “It’s a ‘come as you are party,’ if you will. Basically we said, ‘Here are our requirements. Under a fixed-price contract, build a prototype and demonstrate its capabilities against our CPD.’ The four contractors that participated in the demonstration phase include Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Thales-Raytheon.”

“That demonstration is yet another risk-mitigation step for the program,” he stated. “By having the contractors clearly demonstrate capabilities, we can gauge where certain technologies are as far as maturity to meet our requirements. We asked them to sign up and declare how much of our CPD, as a percentage, that each of the contractors can meet. To prevent an offeror from saying that they might be at 90 percent by leaving off the 10 percent that were the hardest capabilities, we made some of the harder capabilities mandatory during the demonstration. Those mandatory capability areas include track management and data fusion.”

Masinsin said that the contractor teams each received one month at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren System Integration Lab (SIL), where they were able to finish the development of their prototype in a representative operational environment. Those sessions were then followed with a 10-day “run for record” assessed prototype demonstration at the Marine Corps Tactical Systems Support Activity (MCTSSA) System Test and Integration Lab (STIL) at Camp Pendleton.

“We ran the contractor prototypes through increasingly more difficult scenarios to gauge their behavior and capabilities,” he said. “And we also collected data on their performance. In addition, we asked the contractors to generate two studies for us during the demonstration phase. One is a transportability study that includes things like how they would propose to package the system. The second is an architecture study to surface the design and architecture of their prototype for us.”

Following the closure of the demonstration phase, the program released the RFP for the Phase 2 follow-on effort.

“This time we are going to use a fixed-price incentive contract with the competition restricted to the vendors that participated in the prototype demonstration phase,” Masinsin said. “We are going to select one vendor to take us through the final design and fielding.

“One of the important things to note is that our evaluation and assessment of their performance during the prototype period was provided back to each vendor. The idea behind that is that they can, in turn, incorporate how they would attack any identified issues in their follow-on proposal,” he added.

A Phase 2 contract was awarded to General Dynamics C3I Systems in Scottsdale, Ariz., in the fourth quarter of 2012.

“While Phase 1 is fielding and tackling those ‘less technically challenging’ capabilities, in Phase 2 we tackle the capabilities that are more technically challenging,” Masinsin said. “Examples include capabilities like multi-source integration, which includes inputs from radars, data links, and the Composite Tracking Network, and then fusing all of that together to create a common tactical picture. Another capability involves tying in sensors, to include the G/ATOR [Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar].

“We are looking for a Milestone C for Phase 2 in the first quarter of FY 15 and anticipate an IOT&E for Phase 2 in the second quarter of FY 16. The IOT&E results will then inform a Phase 2 Full Deployment Review with PEO LS during the fourth quarter of FY 16,” he added.

He continued, “Now given that schedule, it means that I also have to sustain my legacy systems at least through the FY 16 to FY 18 period before I can ‘sunset’ them when I have enough CAC2S Phase 2 capabilities fielded to the operating forces. We have to care for and feed those currently fielded systems. I have to keep the legacy systems relevant. That is the issue. If the operating forces get a call to support a contingency today, our systems must be relevant with capabilities that are interoperable with our sister services.

“The plan is to not introduce any more ‘new capability’ to legacy systems but focus on system safety, maintaining information assurance capabilities, and other relevance issues,” he said. “For example, if my service partners out there implement a new message for Link-16, then I am expected to also implement that in my legacy systems.”

“The plan is to not introduce any more ‘new capability’ to legacy systems but focus on system safety, maintaining information assurance capabilities, and other relevance issues,” he said. “For example, if my service partners out there implement a new message for Link-16, then I am expected to also implement that in my legacy systems.”

Asked about any lessons learned that may have emerged from the recent prototype demonstrations, Masinsin acknowledged, “The employment concept is a little bit different than what the Marines are accustomed to. So as they accrue more ‘run time,’ if you will, using CAC2S in local exercises and force level exercises, operators and maintainers are not only developing more proficiency but also developing new tactics, techniques, and procedures [TTPs] that are different than they were accustomed to with the old system.

“But that’s all positive,” he said. “Again, as an example noted earlier in the DASC, they didn’t have a digital air picture. So how do you fight the DASC now that you have an air picture? How much better are you? How much more efficient are you? And I submit to you that their situational awareness has increased probably tenfold and they are far more efficient and effective.”

He added, “In the past, you were relying on the aircrew to report that they were at Point A. In contrast, now operators in the DASC see that the aircrew really is at Point A. So if controllers have to deconflict fires, for example, they are able to do that with confidence that the airspace is really clear of friendly aircraft before they let artillery shoot.”

In addition to greater situational awareness of where assets are located in the air and on the ground, CAC2S will also provide the DASC with automated and collaborative tools that will facilitate the exchange of information and automate request processes for the Joint Tactical Air Request (JTAR), Assault Support Request (ASR), and MEDEVAC/CASEVAC missions.

“There’s also some interest from the Air Force on this, because we pretty much have the same mission set,” Masinsin acknowledged. “The Air Force uses the same hardware as the TAOM so they have the same issues with diminishing manufacturing sources and obsolescence. So they are looking to see if the solution we are developing might be of interest to them.”

The success of the new CAC2S strategy was publicly highlighted on June 15, 2012, when Under Secretary of the Navy Robert O. Work and Stackley recognized a number of individuals and commands for outstanding acquisition practices with a combined cost savings to the government of more than $2.5 billion.

PEO Land Systems’ CAC2S Program Office (now AC2SN) earned the 2012 Major Acquisition Activity Award in recognition of “creative and effective practices that lead to lower costs and better technical performance.”

“It is a point of pride for us that we have given money back to the department, to the tune of $84 million, because of efficient program execution and ‘should cost’ initiative savings,” Masinsin said.

“The story is that we went from the verge of cancellation in ’08 to delivering capabilities in ’12,” he concluded. “And from program restructure to delivery of a Phase 1 solution to the fleet took just 25 months – all under ACAT I scrutiny and oversight. That clearly shows validity of the program office and PEO and the ability to recognize how to turn around problem areas and make them successful.”