Product Support Financial Value Drivers. 9/10 – Life Cycle Stage of a Product

Mar 19
2013

This blog is the ninth of ten discussing the product support financial value drivers of the solutions supplied by a commercial or military focused capital good Product Support Enterprise [PSE]. The blog will provide an overview on how the analysis of the life cycle stages of a product and its components can deliver a better understanding of the life cycle cost of a PSE.

The life cycle stage of a product inducted into a variety of Product Support processes can be broken-down into two primary stages: in-production and out-of-production, and then segmented into early, mid and late life stages. A further break-down can also be employed in which the product’s parts are either in-production or out-of-production. And finally the segmentation of a Product’s parts can be identified as being Made-To-Order [MTO], also referred to as developmental or proprietary, and Commercial Off The Shelf [COTS]. For each stage analyzed, the following 5 financial elements must also be reviewed:

  1. Direct resources: Tech labor (i.e. maintainers, tech reps)
  2. Direct resources: Parts (i.e. reparable, non-reparable)
  3. Indirect resources: Process flow (i.e. shop building, test equipment, schedulers)
  4. Indirect resources: Direct resource management (i.e. warehouse, transport, packaging, training)
  5. Indirect resources: PSE oversight management (i.e. offices, data infrastructure, leadership)

The blog will be a series of the following 3 charts providing a template for a variety of discussions in establishing PSE solutions throughout the life cycle of a product:

  1. Product life cycle graph and corresponding PSE activity
  2. Table of life cycle stages and potential scenarios; there can be many more scenarios that can be reviewed
  3. Example of inputs for each life cycle scenario selected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The purpose of this BLOG was only to skim the surface as to the multiple questions that must be addressed when reviewing a Product’s life cycle and its financial impact upon the PSE.

Hypatia©, a Giuntini & Company financial software tool, provides a highly automated means of calculating the above and other product support financial value drivers, as well as an effortless way of being able to change any utilization assumption and immediately understand its impact upon total ownership costs. Hypatia is also a proven, trusted and highly effective tool for assisting in the development of product support business case analysis.

Product Support Financial Value Drivers. 7/10 – Regulatory Requirements

Nov 27
2012

This post is the seventh of ten entries that will discuss product support financial value drivers for solutions supplied by a commercial or military focused capital good Product Support Enterprise [PSE]. The 10 topics that will be discussed are the following:

  1. # of products employed by end-users
  2. End-user product utilization rate
  3. Product failure
  4. Environment in which end users engage the product
  5. Preventive maintenance processes employed
  6. Volatility of product technology
  7. Regulatory requirements
  8. Chronological age of the product installed base
  9. Life cycle stage of the product
  10. Manufacturer’s warranty coverage

As nations become wealthier, there is a drive to mitigate the risks of occurrence of the events that unfavorably impact society – think auto safety, hazardous materials disposition, and many others. As a result, many regulatory actions have been employed by nations and local legislatures. These regulations have had a significant impact upon Product Support financial value driver results.

Product support financial value drivers – regulatory requirements

Let’s start with safety concerns. All industries have regulations that require certain Product Support processes to be employed that either protects the users of equipment, or the outputs of the equipment. Transportation equipment has as extensive amount of time/use/condition based preventive maintenance tasks to avoid any unplanned failure. From brake overhauls for trains, to flight control actuator overhauls for aircraft, very specific maintenance tasks must be performed throughout the life of the equipment; in most cases the ability to operate a piece of equipment requires that the OEM has obtained approval by a regulatory body for a detailed preventive maintenance schedule. These requirements can often drive 20-40% of the Product Support life cycle costs.

Another area of regulation driving costs is one that continues to expand every year; maintenance activities that avoid unfavorable environmental events. For example, the preventive overhaul of a valve in order to avoid failure resulting in a hazardous material spill, or the inspection of a structure for corrosion that could result in equipment releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere. This area is specifically costly in the process industries of chemicals, oil and power generation.

In certain cases, regulatory requirements have a strange impact on Product Support costs. A case in point is in Japan and the insurance of automobiles where in order to generate demand for new cars, the Japanese government has mandated that insurance rates increase based upon the age of a vehicle. Upon a car approaching 10 years old, the insurance rates are so high that it “pays”  to get rid of the car (they leave Japan for  less developed countries) and purchase a new car. This regulation has a major impact upon the Product Support financial value driver solutions for older vehicles; there is none!

Recent changes to the fuels employed to operate equipment has created unintended impacts upon Product Support maintenance; some have decreased the frequency of unplanned failures, but others have significantly changed the frequency of preventive maintenance tasks; think bio-fuels for commercial truck engines.

The disposition of Product Support parts that are deemed hazardous materials can also increase costs; sometimes the cost of disposition is more expensive than the acquisition of the part. This is often true of certain consumables such of filters, lubricants, and others.

Product support financial value drivers – regulatory requirements

One of the Product Support financial value cost challenges is that there are many different regulations throughout the globe requiring different Product Support processes to be employed. For many global organizations, where equipment is transported to many sites, think oil drilling equipment, Product Support processes are often employed that meet the most demanding regulations of any nation that the equipment can be employed. This is done in order to be flexible in aligning demand and supply of equipment on a global basis. For example if ExxonMobil has to move equipment from Nigeria to the USA, even though Nigeria may have less demanding Product Support regulations, the Nigerian equipment is maintained to USA standards so that if demand shifts to the USA, the equipment doesn’t have to be reset to use in the USA.

All the above cases of regulatory requirements are always driven by optimizing equipment cost and minimizing its unfavorable impacts on society. Product Support costs, which constitute the plurality of Total Ownership Costs for most equipment types, will remain a primary “victim” of many of these regulations.

Product Support life cycle financial planning must include scenario-based tools that can analyze the impact of different regulatory changes upon the short-term and long-term TOC.

Hypatia©, a Giuntini & Company financial software tool, provides a highly automated means of calculating the above and other product support financial value drivers, as well as an effortless way of being able to change any utilization assumption and immediately understand its impact upon total ownership costs. Hypatia is also a proven, trusted and highly effective tool for assisting in the development of product support business case analysis.

Product Support Financial Value Drivers. 5/10 – Preventive Maintenance Processes Employed

Oct 25
2012

This post is the fifth of ten entries that will discuss product support financial value drivers for solutions supplied by a commercial or military focused capital good Product Support Enterprise [PSE]. The 10 topics that will be discussed are the following:

  1. # of products employed by end-users
  2. End-user product utilization rate
  3. Product failure
  4. Environment in which end users engage the product
  5. Preventive maintenance processes employed
  6. Volatility of product technology
  7. Regulatory requirements
  8. Chronological age of the product installed base
  9. Life cycle stage of the product
  10. Manufacturer’s warranty coverage

Product Support Business Case Analysis – Product Support Financial Value Drivers

Preventive Maintenance [PM] is a Product Support process that attempts to avoid an unplanned failure event; it is typically described and recommended to be employed by an end-item maintainer in the maintenance manual generated by an OEM.

There are three key flavors of PM:

  1. Use-based (i.e. after every 1,000 cycle remove reparable item to be overhauled and re-installed)
  2. Period-based (i.e. every 6 months remove/dispose non-reparable part and replace with a new condition part)
  3. Condition-based (i.e. when consumable brake pad wears down to 1 inch thickness, remove/dispose and replace)

All the above actions lend themselves to dependent demand financial planning; all you need to know is the forecast of each of the PM drivers and you develop a lock on the financial impact of a PM schedule.

For example;

  1. A reparable item has a PM schedule of a removal every 1,000 hours of end-item use; the item is to be overhauled and re-installed
  2. The end-item’s utilization is forecasted to be 4,000 hours per year or a planned removal event every 3 months/4 times per year
  3. The estimated cost of an overhaul is $2,000; the annual cost of the PM schedule is $8,000 (4 removals*$2,000).

The great tragedy of PM is that once established, there is often little adjustment to its frequency; comparing real-world failure experience and that of the PM schedule. The exception is when there is a major reliability issue which requires an immediate PM schedule adjustment. This lack of proactive adjustment, either up or down, can have a major impact upon Product Support financial value drivers.

Note that there are some PM schedules that are safety related and are required by Governmental regulations to be performed, but in almost all cases the PM schedule can be changed upon Governmental approval.

The following is an example of a project I designed and managed which was able to ultimately reduce the frequency of PM events by 50% over a 5-year period. There were about 100 non-reparable items that were selected that had PM scheduled removals every year. A slow frequency adjustment was employed in order to mitigate any unfavorable Materiel Availability performance risks; if actual unplanned failures increased, then we could quickly recover by going back to the original PM schedule frequency.

Product Support Business Case Analysis – Product Support Financial Value Drivers

In the project’s first year, the PM schedule of all 100 items was changed from 12 months to 13 months; an 8% reduction in removal frequency. The project team then waited 1 year to review failure analysis and end-user issues regarding these parts; there was no impact on the end-user community. In year two, the team stretched the PM schedule to 15 months; a 15% frequency reduction. Year three the PM schedule was moved to 18 months, with year four to 21 months and finally year five to 24 months; with a total decrease in PM schedule frequency of 50% ((24-12)/24). These 100 items drove 10% of the Total Ownership Cost [TOC]; the reduction in PM frequency resulted in a weighted 5% (50% reduction * 10% of cost) reduction in TOC.

The use of scenario based Product Support financial planning tools enables “what if” calculations on the changing of the frequency of PM schedules. There are big reductions in TOC to be harvested, but it has to be slow and methodical in its execution.

Hypatia©, a Giuntini & Company financial software tool, provides a highly automated means of calculating the above and other product support financial value drivers, as well as an effortless way of being able to change any utilization assumption and immediately understand its impact upon total ownership costs. Hypatia is also a proven, trusted and highly effective tool for assisting in the development of product support business case analysis.

Product Support Financial Value Drivers. 4/10 – Operating Environment in Which End-Users Engage the End-Item

Oct 19
2012

This post is the fourth of ten entries that will discuss product support financial value drivers for solutions supplied by a commercial or military focused capital good Product Support Enterprise [PSE]. The 10 topics that will be discussed are the following:

  1. # of products employed by end-users
  2. End-user product utilization rate
  3. Product failure
  4. Environment in which end users engage the product
  5. Preventive maintenance processes employed
  6. Volatility of product technology
  7. Regulatory requirements
  8. Chronological age of the product installed base
  9. Life cycle stage of the product
  10. Manufacturer’s warranty coverage

Product Support Financial Value Drivers

There are many attributes of an operating environment that can have an impact upon Product Support financial drivers and performance. For some end-items, the impact is quite material, and for others not as much. OEMs, when designing their products, are quite aware of the operating environment of their end-items, and in turn adapt their design to minimize the operating environment’s impact Total Ownership Cost [TOC]. The OEM still will acknowledge that there will be financial implications, that can be material, especially if the instructions in their maintenance manuals are not followed.

There are 6 factors impacting Product Support financial driver performance:

1. Temperature
The majority of products are designed to meet their performance attributes within a range of temperatures. For example, aircraft, during the certification process, are tested in extreme cold temperatures, as well as in extreme hot temperatures. This assures end-users that all subsystems can function within a wide range of operating environments.

Where Product Support financials are impacted is when the end-user employs the end-item outside the temperature design range for any extended period of time. One example is a Class 8 truck designed for the North American market is exported to sub-Sahara Africa where temperatures can exceed that of the design threshold. Reliability issues can surface quickly resulting in much downtime.

Another example is an electronic device requiring cool external temperatures in order to offset the high temperatures generated by the device. Without the proper conditioning of air, reliability can materially decline.

2. Humidity
This is a major product support financial driver for the Product Support processes engaged in the repair of structural items. Again OEMs design attributes that attempt to minimize the impact of humidity. For example, Boeing in their new 787, reduced the impact of humidity on the corrosion of aluminum, by replacing large sections of the aluminum airframe with non-corroding fiber composites. Vehicle OEMs have dramatically reduced the impact of humidity through higher tech paints and their application.

The employment of preventive measures to assure that humidity does not corrode an end-item is the preferred solution for this area.

3. Particles
Sand, dust, dirt and other particles can cause the employment of multiple Product Support processes; from reliability issues related to mechanical parts becoming impeded, to cosmetic issues of a “dirty” end-item, and to items wear and tear being accelerated as a result of grinding caused by sand. Again OEMs are quite aware of these issues and indicate courses of action in their maintenance manuals, but it doesn’t preclude the end-user from being financially impacted by the presence of these particles due to the preventive maintenance activities that are performed on a periodic basis.

4. Fluids
The effective management of the impact of salt water, chemicals, oils and other fluids can improve Product Support financial performance. For example end-items employed in the transportation field, trucks, aircraft, ships and trains all have extensive Product Support programs to minimize the financial impact of salt water; from fresh water washing to periodic disassembly/clean/reassembly. Manufacturing equipment is often subjected to chemical and oil exposure requiring the employment of preventive Product Support processes.

5. Hours of Operation
For certain end-users they can only operate their end-items during specific times of the day; could be safety related, pollution related or noise related. For example trucks cannot idle in an urban area after 2200, or aircraft cannot depart after 2100, or building construction activities cannot occur during the week-end. Whatever the situation, a Product Support Enterprise must deliver solutions that adapt to these constraints. Often Product Support processes will be performed during the hours that the end-user cannot employ its end-items; for labor this can result in higher costs related to shift differentials, or requiring more Product Support parts safety stock, due to parts suppliers not being available to delivery items during off-hours.

6. End-Item Operator
Challenges in adopting to a new technology, loss of experience due to high operator turnover, employee malfeasants (i.e. union “thuggery”) and other elements related to an end-item operator’s unfavorable impact Product Support financial performance is a continuing occurrence to be dealt with in developing solutions for a Product Support Enterprise. Improved operator training programs, user-friendly operator manuals, electronic monitors identifying end-user abuse and other resources can be employed to mitigate the additional financial impact of these challenges.

Product support financial value drivers

Understanding how an end-item is operated in developing a scenario-based Product Support life cycle financial plan or product support business case analysis is just one more element to consider. My recommendation is to have an “operating environment” weight in your Cost Estimating Relationship [CER] input; you might not know exactly how changing operating environments may impact you, but you can take a guess and once real data sets can be captured, you will have a place holder to make those changes.

Hypatia©, a Giuntini & Company financial software tool, provides a highly automated means of calculating the above and other product support financial value drivers, as well as an effortless way of being able to change any utilization assumption and immediately understand its impact upon total ownership costs. Hypatia is also a proven, trusted and highly effective tool for assisting in the development of product support business case analysis.

Product Support Financial Value Drivers. 3/10 – Product Failure

Oct 11
2012

This post is the third of ten entries that will discuss product support financial value drivers for solutions supplied by a commercial or military focused capital good Product Support Enterprise [PSE]. The 10 topics that will be discussed are the following:

  1. # of products employed by end-users
  2. End-user product utilization rate
  3. Product failure
  4. Environment in which end users engage the product
  5. Preventive maintenance processes employed
  6. Volatility of product technology
  7. Regulatory requirements
  8. Chronological age of the product installed base
  9. Life cycle stage of the product
  10. Manufacturer’s warranty coverage

Product Support Value Drivers – Product Failure Physics Envy

This area is one of the most “abused” areas in Product Support life cycle financial planning. Operation Research [OR] analysts, design engineers and logistics professionals have what is affectionately called “physics envy” when it comes to estimating the product failure rates of end-items and their components. The elite group of professionals in the business of predicting product failures tend to have a universally low success rate…

The marketplace has defined the acceptable average level of unplanned failures for a capital good/end-item at about once every 5-7 years. This product failure rate is applicable primarily for Commercial Off The Shelf [COTS] items, with Developmental/Design-To-Order items incurring product failure rates anywhere from 50-100% higher than that of COTS items.

The source of the aforementioned failure data is the Security Exchange Commission [SEC] mandatory filings by OEMs detailing their actual expenses incurred to support their warranty programs. There is over 10 years of reliability/failure rate data sets. Note that product failure rates have dropped by almost 50% over this 10+ year period. Why the “failure analysis” community does not employ this treasure trove of data in all their cost calculations is always amazing to me.

Product Support Value Drivers – Product Failure

Recently Giuntini & Co. developed a scenario-based Product Support life cycle financial plan that included the target cost for the correct-failure process throughout the twenty life of a product. We employed a series of SEC filing data sets and estimated $10 million per year in costs associated with the correct-failure process for an installed base of $200 million end-items. We also employed another method to calculate the cost and it still resulted in approximately the same number.

Product Support Value Drivers – Product Failure

While we had been calculating the correct-failure process costs, a team of OR brains were also calculating the same cost; we were both aware that we were working to the same goal. We both agreed to compare our estimated costs and there was a 4-fold difference in our costs; the OR guys were the higher number. After I examined their methodology, which was quite eloquent, I must say (disclosure; I once was an OR geek myself), I found their results to be totally bogus.

If the higher product failure rates were to have occurred, the product would never have been acquired by any end-user. Our common client accepted the Giuntini & Co. cost estimate as the one to be included in his Total Ownership Cost [TOC] calculation. To this day the OR brains have remained convinced that their methodology was the right way to go, even after being proven decidedly inaccurate.

Lesson learned – be extremely careful of ”physics envy” professionals providing you with product failure rate estimates. There is a high probably that they are materially off from the real world and if you accept their costs without an alternative opinion, you have only yourself to blame when an estimated TOC is way, way off.

Hypatia©, a Giuntini & Company financial software tool, provides a highly automated means of calculating the above and other product support financial value drivers, as well as an effortless way of being able to change any utilization assumption and immediately understand its impact upon total ownership costs.

DoD Has No Idea How Much It Has Invested In Product Support Parts

Sep 09
2012

The DoD’s auditor has reported material financial management weaknesses in the following areas:  Financial Management Systems, for Inventory, Equipment, Government-Furnished parts and Contractor-Acquired parts. In other words, the DoD doesn’t really know what and how much it has in its possession.

In 2005, the DoD issued its Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan  to define the Department’s strategy and methodology for improving financial management operations and controls, and reporting its progress to Congress…and Congress still awaits auditors to sign-off that the DoD is currently compliant.

Not the most effective strategy, eh?

A few years back we performed an extensive analysis of the inventory investment for an ACAT I Army weapon system that had been continually fielded over a 15 year period. We were told repeatedly by Army leadership that Class IX parts were balanced with demand…were they ever wrong!! Upon the conclusion of our study, 90% of the parts supply was classified as obsolete or excess…and I can tell you this poor Supply Chain Management of Product Support parts is common across all Services today. DoD has an estimated $90B of Class IX parts in inventory and my guess is that 30% is obsolete or excess…

Fake COTS Products

Aug 16
2010

An area that has experienced greater scrutiny since the advent of global terrorism has been the infiltration of fake and stolen COTS products into the supply chain. This initiative by terrorists has had three primary drivers:

  1. An “easy” way to generate large profits from an illicit enterprise in order to fund terrorist activities against US Warfighters and others
  2. The deployment of sub-quality products into the supply plain in order to cause business disruptions and economic harm to US firms
  3. The erosion of the value of brands and in turn the value of Intellectual Property (IP) rights; this can undermine the foundation of Western capitalism…but that is for another blog

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development estimates that 5-10% of world trade employs fake or stolen products. This is a serious problem that provides almost a limitless source of funds to terrorists, besides that of illegal drugs.

The Government and/or its contractors pay the following price for the need to secure the COTS product supply chain:

  • Higher insurance costs to mitigate the risks of “being stuck” with fake products or experience the thief of their product
  • Higher costs for the security of goods while in storage
  • Liabilities for branded products that fail and cause harm
  • Higher warranty expenditures for fakes
  • Overhead costs for providing surveillance of employee: espionage, bribery and theft
  • Authentication efforts to be able to validate the source of goods
  • Legal expenses to pursue wrongdoers

As COTS products continue to increase their presence in weapon systems, the above issues will have to be addressed by the Government and its contractors.

Changes Are A Comin’ to DoD Contractor Product Support

Aug 10
2010

The U.S. Department of Defense is the biggest purchaser of Product Support expenditures in the world; it annually buys an estimated $50 billion dollars worth of such goods and services.

The last ten years has proven to be an especially favorable period for military contractors; overall DoD spending has increased from $300 billion per year to $700 billion, or 130%, and America now employs nearly half of all global military resources.  It is estimated that Contractor Product Support expenditures rose at a 150% to 200% rate during the ten year period.

As a result of the large build-up in DoD expenditures, the US currently generates 50% of the global military expenditures, but the US economy only generates 25% of the global economic output…this imbalance will most likely be realigned back to a historical ratio of 1:1 between the US economic output and defense spending.  

When many contractors have only one customer that matters financially, options are limited as to generating additional sources of revenues to compensate for lost Product Support revenues.

Even the biggest military contractors claim less than five percent of the Pentagon’s budget, so a contractor’s fortunes is influenced more by how defense dollars are spent than by the size of the budget. For example, contractor revenues can decrease, even when military spending remains high, if money migrates out of weapon system acquisition and into uniformed and civilian manpower.

Below are some of the primary trends driving down Contractor Product Support expenditures:

  1. Reduction in overall weapon system OPTEMPO due to the scaling back the size of the US military deployment in SW Asia. With an estimated 25% of all weapon systems in theatre and their OPTEMPO an estimated 100% higher than those systems not in theatre, it is estimated that overall Product Support expenditures will decrease by 15%-20%, with contractors experiencing an estimated 20%-30% drop in Product Support revenues
  2. The current fiscal challenges of the Federal Government to finance all their budgeted programs will most likely result in the military being a “victim” of fiscal austerity. It is quite feasible that 15-20% of DoD weapon system inventories will be stored long-term in order to reduce Product Support expenditures. Given the US Congress and the power of the depot-lobby, many of the systems stored will be those currently primarily supported by contractors
  3. The emphasis that Secretary Gates has put on “rebalancing” the defense strategy. Rebalancing means putting less emphasis on conventional, industrial-age warfare, and more emphasis on non-traditional skills like counter-insurgency warfare; this strategy will reduce complex weapon systems that require a complex Product Support Enterprise. There will be more an emphasis upon COTS items being integrated into a solution for the warfighter. COTS Product Support expenditures are often materially less than that of Developmental Items, thus resulting in overall lower Product Support expenditures
  4. The move to “in-source” Product Support management jobs previously contracted out to industry by the Program Offices and Life Cycle Management Commands. The Government is actively recruiting “seasoned” professional from contractors; either the professionals join the Government or they lose their job.

Each of the major weapon system contractors will be encountering different Product Support issues:

  • Northrop Grumman (NG) has decided to remain primarily focused upon new weapon system deliveries. It recently sold its services unit, TASC, due to conflicts between its OEM business and its Product Support business. This was a major policy change for NG
  • General Dynamics (GD) has generated material Product Support revenues from Interim Contractor Support (ICS) programs for the communication communities, especially for weapon systems in theatre; a GD Contractor Field Service Representative (CFSR) in theatre generates almost $500,000 per year of revenue. Supplemental funds have been an engine of growth for GD Product Support programs; this will be going away sooner, rather than later
  • Raytheon is less exposed than other primary OEMs due to the nature of their products being electronics; Product Support expenditures, at least at the organizational maintenance level, is much smaller than that of weapon systems that have more mechanical parts
  • Lockheed Martin (LM) will encounter many challenges in the Product Support area. The company needs to generate $130 million in new sales every day just to stay where it is, and that won’t be easy in a down market for Product Support.

There will be many challenges in the area of DoD Product Support over the next few years. Adding value to DoD, rather than filling positions to perform routine Product Support tasks, will differentiate winners from losers. And let us not forget that Outcome Based Product Support programs will be the rule rather than the exception for all future Product Support contractor offerings; that will be the only way that DoD will be able to manage Product Support processes more effectively for less costs.

For a more detailed discussion on the above topic, review the recent conference discussions at the Lexington Institute.

The COTS Wagon Keeps On Rolling…But Is Anyone Watching?

Jul 02
2010

It is inevitable that the Services Acquisition Commands continue to focus on employing COTS products in the design of their new weapons systems and key infrastructure; this is aligned with the focus of Secretary Gates and Undersecretary Carter to reduce costs, but retain the military’s effectiveness.

Below are two recent acquisition initiatives at employing COTS products. I know of no DoD study that annually measuring the COTS content of new weapon systems…if there is none, one should be started.

1. The U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) is placing orders under the Common Afloat Local Area Network Infrastructure (CALI). Under the CALI contracts, contractors will provide ships and submarines with Common Computing Environment (CCE) Components, Integrated Logistics Support (ILS), Configuration Management (CM), Test and Evaluation (T&E), Quality Assurance (QA), and Installation Support. Each contractor will deliver a secure, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) hardware, software and networking equipment. Each CALI contract has a total potential value of $502 million if all options are exercised. 

2. The Air Force is working on the Common Large Area Display Set (CLADS) acquisition program to replace aging CRTs in the Airborne Warning   And Control System (AWACS) aircraft with one of three flat-screen technologies: active matrix LCD (AMLCD), gas plasma, or a digital micro-mirror device. “The heart and soul of this is COTS, with some heavy ruggedization to operate under depressurization. The prices we`re seeing coming in the door are a third of what the old technology stuff now costs,” Bill Sirmon, a civilian contract negotiator at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. Aboard the AWACS now are CRTs that operate for about 300 hours between failures; the new products are planned to increase that operating time to 3,000 to 5,000 hours between failures.

info@giuntinicompany.com

Tel: 570-713-4795