|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
4
Workshop Session 3:
Implementation Issues Government Agencies'
Perspectives
The speakers at Session 3 focused on the implementation of commercial
specifications or standards in place of those previously issued by the government and on
barriers to their implementation. The organizations offering their experiences were the
Langley Research Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the Air Force Space and Missiles
Systems Center.
NASA IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMERCIAL SPECIFICATIONS
Mark Shuart, of the NASA Langley Research Center, spoke of NASA Langley's
efforts in developing composite materials and their associated standards. Its development
focus is to formulate new materials, characterize new materials and material forms, and
to demonstrate and validate new concepts. He spoke extensively on the development of
test methods and the program objectives ofthe NASA Technical Standards Program.
Standards are an outgrowth of research and technology work and the need for new
materials and forms. NASA recognized its need to lead the development of standards.
The approach was proactive interaction of NASA with industry and universities to
develop and verify test methods for new materials. There are multiple examples of
NASA cooperation with industry in development of methods and standards. Testing is
initiated at NASA then continues with round robin testing.
It is necessary to negotiate cost sharing with industry. However, cost sharing can
limit the dissemination of information, as some data are proprietary.
The NASA Technical Standards Program coordinates standards for agency
programs ant! projects. Its objectives are as follows:
.
Develop and maintain an integrated NASA Preferred Technical Standards
System.
· Improve interoperability within NASA and with industry and universities both
nationally and internationally.
Document experiences and lessons learned.
Sponsor the development of technical standards and products of particular use
to NASA.
Promote increased use of and support for national and international consensus
standards.
· Enhance awareness of stanclardization in NASA.
19
OCR for page 20
20 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards
NASA Langley has contributed to standards as part of its materials and structures
technology development and has developed standard test methods to evaluate
composites. Research at NASA Langley continues to support ASTM and
MIL-HDBK-17 efforts for composite materials standards.
In closing, Dr. Shuart emphasized that the agency needs to ensure continued
involvement in the development of standards and needs to promote its participation in
technical societies.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PERSPECTIVE
Larry Ilcewicz, of the FAA, spoke on the following topics: FAA certification and
delegation for commercial products; general outlook on the barriers; recommended
solutions for composites used in aviation products; an evolving national plan for
composite certification initiatives; and some progress in base material control and shared
databases.
He said that the good old recipes are understood, reliable, and proven to yield
repeatable, safe, and durable products. Desired new recipes will have all the benefits of
the good old recipes plus cost and performance advantages. Such imr~rovements will
(~ - - 1- - -7 ¢ ~ -I r ~ =7~ V ~
require a joint effort of industry, government agencies, and national organizations, which
will be more efficient and smarter in developing the new recipes.
The FAA certification process includes type certification, with extensive FAA
oversight, and production certification, where the manufacturer controls production with
less FAA oversight. Each aircraft must have an airworthiness certificate, and the
certification steps are basically the same for MilSpecs, commercial, or "own specs." The
FAA recognizes there will be interim problems until new specifications are developed.
Dr. Ilcewicz suggested the FAA form Partnerships in Safety with individual designees
and company delegations to assist FAA aircraft certifications.
Although MilSpecs were benchmarks for safety, national standardization leads to
more efficient product certification. The conversion to commercial specifications will,
however, have some interim lack of standardization and may inadvertently omit some
shared technical information that came from the DoD. Among the indirect effects of
DoD acquisition reform on the FAA is less training and experience available to those
who must produce specifications, and it becomes clear that SDOs must have a conduit to
industry-government-university research initiatives.
The greatest barrier to the adoption of commercial materials and processing
standards will be the time that is needed. Somewhere between forced standardization and
a commercial consensus process is a middle ground that should yield specifications
acceptable to an efficient industry. Industry, government agencies, and national
organizations need to work together to accomplish this. Dr. Ilcewicz suggested that
SDOs need to reconsider the technical processes and business structure of their
organizations in order to address how the technical resources to create specifications can
be supported; the proprietary material and process issues; how to retain valuable research
. . .. . .. .
Norma on In one commercial specifications; and feedback from applications using the
specifications. Government agencies and technical resources must remain major
stakeholders to gain technical benefits. Dr. Ilcewicz also listed educational issues as a
OCR for page 21
Workshop Session 3: Implementation Issues Government Agencies' Perspectives
major barrier to the acceptance of commercial specifications. The associated
documentation and the training of a workforce for new standards is not a trivial task and
relates to limited resources skilled in particular materials technologies.
Dr. Ilcewicz's recommendations were as follows:
Promote integrated development among industry, government, and university
research.
.
Promote close collaboration between international and national standards
organizations, industry, and government.
Create composite certification initiatives by:
Working with industry, government, and academia to ensure safe
deployment of technologies,
Sharing databases, and
Fostering FAA/NASA/DoD partnerships with industry.
SPACE SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
Dave Davis, of the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center at Los
;;
~ 1
Angeles Air Force Base, elaborated on the systems-level acquisition methodology for the
center and on technical challenges and issues.
The goal of acquisition reform is to derive a best practice by capitalizing on
commercial practices and competitive supplier designs and processes and by consistently
applying them across the DoD. The focus is performance-based, so the government
should continue to assess capabilities, approve contractors' proposals of production, and
manage risks.
Mr. Davis also reviewed the center's implementation of a performance-based
business environment. Recent contracts have used performance-based business
environment methodology and made minimal use of MiTSpecs and standards;
performance requirements have been clocumented. Contractor processes and applications
are inclucled as part of the proposal. In the area of specifications and standards, there is a
recognized neecl for industry standards, substantial conversion of MilSpecs, and
government support for NGSBs. Critical process assessment tools would also be useful if
the government can assess all responses to a common set of evaluation standards.
He identified several technical challenges and issues:
· The industrial base has undergone significant change and is continuing to
change.
· Proposal costs are out of sync with the costs associated with actual processes.
Technical processes often are just streamlined, not reengineerecl.
Industrial base concerns include the following:
Many manufacturers have left the military market in recent years, resulting in
decreased availability of devices that meet MiTSpecs.
There is a decreased availability of product, leading to concerns about the
future supply.
OCR for page 22
22 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Stanblards
· Other issues are: advanced technology funding; product life cycle vs.
acquisition schedules; and the financial viability of suppliers.
In summary, the current practice of system-level acquisition facilitates the
application of commercial materials and processes. Also, the space community must be
selective, since not all commercial specifications get the job done. There remain
numerous technical challenges, including a better understanding of the products and
supply base.
PANEL DISCUSSION
The speakers assembled for a general question-and-answer session with the
audience at the end of the formal presentations. The following items provide a general
overview of the major issues covered during the panel discussion:
Government needs to work closely with NGSBs.
Government engineers must understand processes.
Companies that could not compete using MilSpec requirements can supply to
performance-based requirements.
Test methods vary between supplier companies.
· The risk is twofold: the loss of controlling or defining specifications and the
loss of an experienced personnel base in government and industry.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
acquisition reform
