A meaningful HUBZone Small Business Roundtable?

Pleasantly surprised, having attended countless small business events in the past few decades and almost without exception left underwhelmed and disappointed.  Not this time.  Hope springs eternal!    

I'm delighted to report that the Department of the Navy's (DoN) Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) and the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR) co-hosted a non-attribution, by invitation only closed door roundtable on the day before the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Gold Coast event this week at the San Diego Convention Center.  The hosts were to invite one representative from 10 Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) companies, but by my count about half that many attended, including yours truly.  It is sometimes asserted by government representatives that there just aren't any HUBZones out there.  I beg to differ.  We're just very good at managing our scarce resources... we have to be.  Nonetheless, the sizable conference room table was full... we had to find more chairs.  The HUBZone small business reps were outnumbered about 5 to one... maybe more.  Off to a good start!  

The Navy's co-chairs of the HUBZone roundtable were SES Jimmy Smith, Director of DoN OSBP, and SES John Pope, Executive Director of NAVWAR.  Also in attendance was SES Nancy Gunderson the Director of NAVWAR Contracts and a few of her staff.  Jimmy started off by orienting us to essentially what was motivating this and other roundtables, and the apparent recent uptick in the Navy's attention to Defense Industrial Base (DIB) small businesses... the Honorable Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy (SecNav).  

I met Carlos in San Diego, before he was the Honorable Secretary Del Toro, when he was the CEO of SBG Technology Solutions as they primed an opportunity with Boarhog as a sub.  After 17 years as a small business pursuing work with the 10 Navy acquisition commands, Carlos was now SecNav... the head honcho.  The Assistant Secretary who owned Navy acquisition programs now reported to him, as did Mr. Smith, who revealed SecNav summoned him to his office earlier than expected, and let him know the DoN OSBP wasn't doing as well as they would have him understand, so Mr. Smith put aside his slideshow and listened.  There was a list... these things needed attention, and not maybe someday when we get around to it.  

In mid July SecNav held a meeting with leaders of the 10 Navy acquisition commands, letting them know the Navy wasn't doing nearly enough to do right by small businesses, especially for the small business subcontractors who were at the mercy of their large prime contractors.  The Navy's measures of effectiveness are exclusively tied to revenue to small business prime contractors, broken down by socioeconomic category.  Small business subcontractors are off the Navy's radar, essentially of no interest to the OSBPs since they received no credit for small business subcontractor work on the Navy's contracts.  My albeit imperfect analogy would be Major League Baseball franchise owners deciding there's nothing to be gained by having an interest in the minor leagues or farm teams where their future players develop and maybe someday get to play in the "big league."  The Navy de facto believes small business contractors are born ready to prime on day one, and if they're not then let them go sell refrigerators or used cars or whatever.  The big business primes will determine the small business subcontractors' fate, and the Navy can trust Booz Allen, Deloitte, Leidos, and the rest of the very capable and wonderful big businesses to do right by their small business subcontractors... can't they?  Sure... they must... they do.  I was told directly by one Navy Director OSBP that the Navy has no contractual relationship with small business subcontractors, and they must avoid interfering in the prime-sub relationships, so it's none of his business what happens to small business subcontractors.  The primes have free reign... go forth and do good.  Give your small business subcontractors the work you promised them in the Teaming Agreements and as reflected in the prime contractors' Small Business Subcontracting Plan that the big primes submit to the Navy with their proposals.  They make good on those small business subcontractor allocations they promised in their proposals, right?  Sure they do.  Right?  Right?

Maybe the Honorable Secretary Del Toro knows better.  I'll bet he does (you know he does).  He lived it for 17 years.  My company's experience is this... we have 39 subcontracts to support the Navy, of which 10 have any work whatsoever.  That's not because we sit by and wait for the phone to ring.  We bug the heck out of all our primes.  We had to bid on about 150 opportunities to land those 39 subcontracts.  So you do the math.  What did it cost Boarhog to respond to multiple data calls and rounds of pricing from the primes and participation in proposal reviews on 150 opportunities?  That labor isn't free.  Continuing our Major League Baseball analogy, we're batting .250 which is about what the rest of the small businesses bat.  We win 39 times, with 75% of those "wins" yielding nothing.  Does the Navy track that?  Do they ask their primes if they're employing their small business subcontractors as they proposed they would in their government solicitation response that earned them the award?  If they were, wouldn't the Navy know that 75% of the time their small business subcontractors get nothing?  That's not just Boarhog... the other HUBZone small businesses at the roundtable echoed this experience.  Two HUBZone leaders told Mr. Smith and Mr. Pope that they have resigned themselves to not subcontracting on Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) anymore, and one stated emphatically he doesn't subcontract anymore at all, to anyone.  That's how bad it has gotten for his company.  

To their credit, Mr. Smith and Mr. Pope listened with interest, took notes, and stated they'd get to the bottom of this issue.  I've known John Pope since he was a Navy Lieutenant when we were on active duty at NAVSEA together, and I will state without reservation that he has always demonstrated honor and integrity, and he does so today as the Executive Director of NAVWAR.  When he states emphatically that he'll get to the bottom of something, he will.

More to follow....     

                        

Composition of the DoD Small Business Industrial Base

Every so often the San Diego Chapter of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) delivers an enlightening talk on a topic of great interest to yours truly in particular, and the DoD small business industrial base in general.  On Wednesday, June 8th there was such a presentation by PW Communications Inc's Amanda Bresler (abresler@pwcommunications.com), their Chief Strategy Officer and cum laude graduate from Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business, who runs their Future Capabilities Practice.  She did a fabulous job delivering her company's findings, some of which I very briefly present for your consideration below.

PW Communications' paper presents their extensive, highly data driven analysis of the DOD small business industrial base by painstakingly analyzing publicly available contract and subcontract award data from 2015 through 2021, not only objectively demonstrating that small businesses in the DoD market have shrank by 23% while awards to small businesses grew by 68%, but also backing up their conclusions that the DoD's policies have failed "...to address the underlying issues that keep small and nontraditional companies from navigating the defense market successfully."  What PW Communications was also able to demonstrate was the government's policies "...enable the largest SBs–which include companies that generate hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in DOD revenue annually–to expand their market share, irrespective of price, quality, or innovativeness."  As a personal comment, on what planet is a company pulling in billions in revenue a "small business"?  Apparently on this one, as far as the DoD is concerned.  Finally, Ms. Bresler presented real recommendations on ways to improve the faulty programs so that they might actually achieve their stated objectives.  

The following are extracted from PW Communications' paper delivered to the NDIA San Diego Chapter's membership for consideration:

• "We conclude that rather than achieving its stated objectives, the DoD small business program reduces opportunities for small businesses, creates a less competitive economic climate, and weakens the defense industrial base (DIB)."
• "The fact that the pool of small business vendors simultaneously shrank not only runs counter to the intended purpose of the program, but also suggests anti-competitive forces at play.  The more the DoD procured from small businesses, the fewer small businesses benefited."
• "DoD small business policies have made the DoD increasingly reliant on fewer suppliers, thereby reducing the variety of available products and services and posing risks to the health and resilience of the industrial base."
• "...businesses can receive hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars, in DoD contracts annually and still qualify as small.  Furthermore, the top 20 small businesses alone received more than $53.6 billion in DoD funded procurement-- over 10% of all DoD funding to small businesses."
• "...the number of small businesses that received more than $100 million in DoD funded procurement in 2021 was 3.23x that of 2015.  By comparison, the number of DoD small businesses awarded $1 million or less in DoD procurement shrank by 32%.  An increase in small business spend has disproportionately benefitted the "largest" small businesses, enabling them to dramatically expand their DoD market share while the DoD market became less opportune for the smallest businesses."  
• "Since the DoD is not incentivized to exceed the 23% set-aside goal, smaller small businesses are in turn crowded out of the defense market."
• "Current policies... have created an inhospitable environment for smaller companies.  Based on our analysis, it is evident that the system favors the largest small businesses at the expense of smaller ones, which runs counter to the stated purpose of the small business program."
• "Liberal teaming and subcontracting policies also create opportunities for the largest small businesses to partner with one another as similarly situated contractors, making the defense market even harder for smaller small businesses to penetrate."  
• "As the largest small businesses expanded their DoD market share, thousands of other small businesses ceased working in the defense market."
• "Simply limiting competition for certain contracts to small businesses does not address these underlying issues.  Until the SBA, DoD and USG address them, the defense market will continue to prove inhospitable for non-entrenched suppliers."  

I encourage you to contact Amanda Bresler to obtain the research paper and to discuss PW Communications findings, methodologies, etc. in further detail.  At a local level, I sincerely hope their analysis, conclusions, and recommendations inspire the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), their Warfare Centers, and their supported Program Executive Offices (PEOs) to collaborate with the NDIA and other related association chapters, specifically their Small Business Committees and the NDIA Government-Industry Outreach Committee (of which yours truly is chair), to flesh out the practical implications of these findings on the local DoD small business industrial base, and what if anything we can do to turn the tide.  The PEOs' program offices' Deputy Program Managers are charged with the collateral duty of Small Business Advocates, and I'd therefore assume they'd take an active interest.  

Frankly, this excellent analysis by PW Communications should strongly reinforce the message that the small business industrial base is no longer interested in hearing from DoD organizations that the current policies don't give them "credit" for working with small businesses who aren't big enough to prime, and that the government counts on prime contractors (both "big smalls" and large) to perform the care and feeding for the smallest small businesses.  If anything, my take-away from PW Communications' analysis is how utterly absurd that position is to the truly small small business industrial base.          

"There just aren't any HUBZone companies out there"

Boarhog LLC will be celebrating 9 years in the national security business this month, and we've been fortunate enough to deliver valued services on more contracts than we have associates, while also executing our Labs-as-a-Service Plus (LaaS+) innovation model to rapidly deliver proven innovations solving current problems.  We just completed a LaaS+ for the Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR) on Uninterruptable Power Supplies (UPS) proliferating C4I systems in the Fleet, and the six innovations we specified will certainly solve persistent UPS problems if and when adopted.  We've been asked by the government to author an article on LaaS+ for publication, and that's in the works.  

For more than a few years now our principal offices have been located across the railroad tracks from NAVWAR headquarters, taking me 20 minutes to walk door to door.  We've served on the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) San Diego chapter Board of Directors and chaired the chapter's Industry-Government Outreach Committee, and Boarhog has sponsored a booth at AFCEA West and a widely attended luncheon talk by a senior NAVWAR official in the Office of the Chief Engineer.  Point is, Boarhog is not flying below the defense industry and government radars in Southern California, and everyone who knows us knows we're a Service Disabled Veteran Owned (SDVO) and Small Business Administration (SBA) certified Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) small business.  That's why it irked me to hear one government Director of the Office of Small Business Programs state in open forum that "there just aren't any HUBZone companies out there" when excusing their failure to achieve their HUBZone prime contractor obligations.  Well, we are indeed out here, but we don't bid prime for very good reasons.  Their response?  If you're out there, why don't you respond to Sources Sought?  Well, I've attempted to answer that question quite a few times, but apparently without success, else we would have detected changes in behavior.  So let's try this again.         

The Director proudly reports to his leadership and defense industry representatives alike that his command has surpassed every one of their socioeconomic category threshold objectives established by the Navy, except for HUBZone.  He laments trying unsuccessfully to get HUBZone small businesses to respond to Sources Sought or to submit prime bids on work that he believes is just right for HUBZone companies to win.  Alas, "there just aren't any HUBZone companies out there."  That, is apparently that.  No evidence offered, or demanded.  Bought hook, line, and sinker... I'm sitting in that audience, and many in attendance turn to look at me, knowing Boarhog is a HUBZone.  What's my take, their looks demand?   

Here's the question I've posed to the Director:  What's the reasoning behind each of the following four standard “requirements” in just about every Sources Sought, and what impact do you think each of the four has on a HUBZone company deciding to work up a Sources Sought response let alone submit a prime proposal?: 

1. Have a DCAA approved accounting system at time of bid in order to be awarded a CPFF services contract;

2. Have prime contractor past performance of similar size and type within the past few years;

3. Have a Secret Facility Security Clearance at time of bid (vice post award DD-254 execution)

4. Have a Seaport-NxG prime contract

Does anybody out there doubt that an extremely small fraction of all HUBZone companies are able to satisfy all four of these Sources Sought “requirements”?  Which of these "requirements" is directly relevant and affects actual performance of the services under consideration?  Might some or all four of them be dismissed by the Navy organization for the right work and thereby increase HUBZone participation if that's indeed an important objective?  These "requirements" can indeed be set aside, as Boarhog knows first hand when a Navy acquisition command kicked all four "requirements" to the curb for a Total Ship Readiness Assessment (TSRA) HUBZone set aside competition.  As a result, quite a few HUBZone small businesses came out of the woodwork to submit prime proposals, and Boarhog won that work before we had an approved accounting system, before we had any prime past performance, before we had a facility security clearance, and before we had a Seaport contract.  That’s the kind of thinking that’ll break the glass ceiling prohibiting many HUBZones from bidding prime, as it did for Boarhog, and that win directly contributed to Boarhog quickly satisfying one, two, then eventually all four of the “requirements.”  More importantly, we performed superbly as a prime contactor according to the technical organization client, who had zero interest in any of those "requirements."  Win-win, putting Boarhog on the map.  

So, are there HUBZone companies out there?  Yes, we're here, in spite of what some would suggest.  I'd offer that more than a few HUBZones continue sitting on their hands when considering Sources Sought containing all four of those "requirements," instead waiting for the government to issue the RFP unrestricted aka "full and open" so the large defense contractors forming teams write their company name under "HUBZone" in their small business subcontracting plan.  Does Boarhog respond to Sources Sought today?  Not very often at all, even though we have an approved accounting system, have a TS facility security clearance, and have a Seaport-NxG prime contract.  The relevant prime past performance "requirement" is an issue, even though the government stated the committee would grade our "no" answer as neither positive nor negative, and the Director quickly followed by stating he's not on the committee and doesn't really know exactly how they decide to set the work aside.  Ok.  We're busy, so good luck achieving that HUBZone threshold.  Maybe the Navy will continue believing without evidence there just aren't any HUBZone companies out there and lower the bar again.  We'll see.              

Is Everyone For Defense Innovation Contracting?

I attended an interesting dinner event last night, presented by Bank of America, Squar-Milner, and Sheppard Mullin.  The subject was Defense Innovation Contracting: Everyone's For It, But Who's In Charge?  The expert speaker presented that while contracting for defense innovation has arrived under the law, it is unclear who's in charge of pursuing innovation.

As I listened, my mind questioned the premise... everyone's for defense innovation contracting.  Is that true?  How would we know?  What would be the indications a defense organization thoroughly understands and actively advances its Equity Interest in Innovation?

Let's start with leadership publicly and persistently professing they want innovation, and lots of it?  Ok.  That's an indication.  What else?

What would those same leaders say when asked what exactly they have done to draw out the best talents of innovators?  How have they established and continued to foster a culture that defaults to "yes" rather than "no," especially when the organization's executives don't understand the innovation themselves?  What about the organization's policies mandating transparency and encouraging collaboration that promotes "what if" thinking, recognizing collaboration is essential to innovation?  How exactly do they protect their innovators and shelter nascent innovations, if at all?  Maybe an indication is the willingness of defense contractors to expend scarce R&D resources with confidence that resulting innovations will survive or fail on their own merits?

"The story of innovation has not changed.  It has always been a small team of people who have a new idea, typically not understood by people around them and their executives." --  Eric Schmidt, Chairman, Google

How about leadership actively supporting business practices that recognize new ideas come from anywhere, and must be looked for everywhere?  How about employees and support contractors who emphatically state they are inspired, and have enough autonomy and latitude to explore outside their box?

"Google has been keeping the pipeline of innovation going by tapping its employees and letting ideas percolate up."  Laszlo Bock, Senior Vice President of Google's People Operations.

May I ask, what else?  I'd very much appreciate your thoughts and opinions.  We all recognize there are very few Googles out there when it comes to thoroughly understanding and actively advancing their equity interest in innovation.  But how far away from Google can an organization be before losing credibility when professing they value innovation, and what consequences might result?       

Thanks in advance.

Systems Engineering Wholeness... Accounting for All the System Functions

A few Systems Engineers I know have a tough time owning all of their system's functionality, regardless of where those functions have been allocated.  They readily take ownership of baselining the functionality allocated to their system's hardware and software, but for some reason have not considered baselining their system's functionality allocated to humans to perform.  Since I know of no fully automated (i.e. all functionality allocated to hardware and software) C4I systems, the results are often predictable.  

Systems Engineers do understand that humans perform C4I systems functions, because they get feedback from the Fleet that the Sailors have a very difficult time operating or maintaining their system.  Yet they make no objective attempt to consistently baseline human performance during system testing in the labs, when their system is being operated and maintained by humans... Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).  Their system tests well in the lab when operated and maintained by SMEs, and then tests well when installed aboard ship where it is again operated and maintained by SMEs (who are "assisting" the Sailors as they learn how to operate and maintain their new system).  But then the SMEs depart.  The Sailors attempt to perform their system functions allocated to them, and their performance is not up to par with that of the SMEs.  Of course it isn't.  How could a System Engineer expect otherwise?  The majority of Sailors aren't SMEs.  So they struggle to get the darn thing to work, and then out of frustration file a CASREP for Tech Assist.  Out come the SMEs... in a few minutes, with no parts needed, the system works just fine, once you get it all configured correctly.  The SMEs depart.  Soon thereafter... CASREP for Tech Assist.  The vast majority of C4I systems are restored to full functionality without drawing a single part from supply.

Are Sailors' performance of systems functions ever baselined?  Sure... by the Fleet.  They have PQS, and watchstander qualifications... these are human performance baselines.  But is this where system Operability and Maintainability should be baselined for the first time?  How does the Systems Engineer understand the performance of all system functionality, including that allocated to Sailors to perform, when that human performance baseline isn't established until the system leaves the testing labs?  How does the Systems Engineer come to learn that the systems functions allocated to humans to perform should instead be reallocated to hardware or software?  The Systems Engineers do reallocate system functionality from software to the Sailors to perform... every time a system trouble report determines a software function that doesn't work has a procedural work-around, and they decide to "fix" that problem by having the Sailors perform that work-around, they've in essence reallocated system functionality to the Sailor that had previously been allocated to software to perform.  Can the Sailors perform all those systems functions?  That's not the question, because ships aren't simply the collocation of individual systems in space and time.  Ships are a System of Systems.  The question is can the Sailors perform all the System of Systems functions they've been allocated to perform, by individual Systems Engineers who have made that decision for their individual system?  

Let's consider a single use case... Multi TADIL J (MTJ), a System of Systems (SoS).  The Fleet has expressed more than mild exasperation with MTJ, but not with the SoS hardware or software.  It's too darn difficult to operate and maintain, end to end.  Is there a Systems Engineer for MTJ?  No.  So who has determined that all the MTJ SoS functionality allocated to Sailors to perform is not more than should be expected for Sailors to perform?  Who has determined the Operability baseline of MTJ?  What is the probability that all the Sailors performing their SoS functions can perform them without error?  These are not training questions.  These are not technical documentation questions.  Training and technical documentation have only one purpose... to increase the probability that Sailors will perform their system functions without error.  But how much training and documentation is needed to increase that probability if a human performance baseline isn't established until the SoS is in the hands of the Fleet?  Why aren't Systems Engineers taking ownership of all the system functions, regardless of where they've been allocated?  Am I frustrated?  I used to be... until an organization took ownership of C4I System of Systems Wholeness... SPAWAR's PEO C4I PMW760, the Ship Integration program office.

PMW760 has examined System of Systems (SoS) functionality, and endeavored to reallocate some of those very difficult and time consuming human functions to software.  They are endeavoring to automate the determination of SoS configuration, something Sailors must do but have a very difficult time doing.  If most of the C4I CASREPs for Tech Assist are cleared by SMEs reestablishing the tested and approved configuration, then Sailors armed with the automation tools to readily determine the SoS configuration, and how it compares to the tested and approved configuration, will at least know their SoS configuration is no longer within baseline, and the automation will point out where within the SoS the misconfiguration issue resides.  This in my humble opinion is a step in the right direction, because as the force becomes more geographically separated under Distributed Lethality, the Sailors will need to rely more and more upon themselves vice the SMEs to restore their SoS functionality.  What's all the more remarkable is PMW760 is doing this without a SoS budget from OPNAV to perform Platform Integration.                           

Boarhog LLC Awarded SERMC Total Ship Readiness Assessment (TSRA) Support Contract

PRESS RELEASE

San Diego, CA (April 30, 2015) – Boarhog LLC has been awarded a prime contract to support the Southeast Regional Maintenance Center (SERMC) in the Mayport, Florida region.  The 2-year fixed price contract, assuming the option is exercised, will provide a cumulative worth of nearly $1,000,000.  The Boarhog team will be providing SERMC’s Engineering Department with support to satisfy the overall operational objectives of the Total Ship Readiness Assessment (TSRA) Integrated Class Maintenance Plan and other Type Commander (TYCOM) directed Assessments.

Managing Member Joseph Bulger stressed the importance of the upcoming mission:  “In a challenging environment of ever-increasing operating tempo and fiscal constraints, Boarhog continues to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to supporting our warfighters.”

A Very Special Learning Experience I Wholeheartedly Endorse

Today after 10 weeks of full time instruction, the Defense Acquisition University West graduated the annual Advanced Program Manager Course (PMT 401) with a nice ceremony on the US Navy ASW Base in San Diego.  I was one of three industry representatives in the class, which was primarily comprised of two dozen Air Force, Navy, and Army prospective and current program managers and deputy program managers.  Without reservation I will assert this was the best course I've ever taken, because my fellow students were spectacular, and the professors have been trained to draw out interaction from the students on multiple levels.

See, DAU structured the course to have almost no lectures.  We powered through 88 case studies, first by individual self study at night, then meeting at 7:30 in small group, followed by 9:00 class engagement.  The class was divided into four groups of six students, each assigned to a group study room, where small group learning facilitated by a professor took place.  We'd talk in small group for 90 minutes about the two or three cases we read the night before, then we'd argue the assignment questions while sharing relevant experiences from our different perspectives.  All the cases were drawn from real world defense acquisition programs that presented a protagonist (the program manager) with one or more dilemmas.  Once the four small groups met together in the large classroom, wider engagement ensued.  The professors introduced critical thinking tools and other management methodologies that enabled us to settle on a problem statement, issues, options, selection criteria, and ultimately a course of action.  Each of us was actively engaged in the learning experience, and we all learned from each other.  Sometimes, DAU would have the actual program manager protagonist in a specific case talk to us about the case in greater detail, and we'd ask them questions and probe into their thought processes.  It was a fantastic opportunity, and I will miss my classmates.  That said, even though we just graduated this morning, more than one of my classmates has already reached out in order to build a group email so we can stay in touch.  I'm gonna build a Blogger for us... pull vice push.

If you get a chance to attend DAU PMT 401, I highly recommend it.  Some of my fellow small business associates have asked me how I could justify being away from work from 7:30 in the morning till 3;30 in the afternoon, Monday through Friday for ten straight weeks.  In my humble opinion that's not the right question.  

              

How Industry's Innovative T&E Efforts Align With Better Buying Power 3.0

"Our technological superiority is being effectively challenged" due to the remarkable worldwide leveling of the state of technology delivered by commercial off the shelf (COTS) computing, communications, and sensors.  Better Buying Power (BBP) 3.0 presents initiatives to achieve dominant capabilities through innovation and technical excellence, as offered by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Mr. Frank Kendall on 19 September 2014.

This week the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) San Diego Chapter put on their Fall C4I Industry Day for close to 400 registrants from across the defense industry, government and academia.  The panel delivered by the International Test & Evaluation Association (ITEA) San Diego Chapter was well received based upon limited feedback and my observation of our audience from the podium as panel moderator.  The expert panelists offered personal experiences and insights on half a dozen of the BBP 3.0 initiatives, specifically focusing on those that can be supported by industry's innovative Test & Evaluation efforts.

The panelists were exactly the right experts, not so senior that they haven't had their hands in the gear recently, but not so junior that they're unsure of themselves or are reluctant to speak up.  All I had to do was tee up the initiatives and ask a few pointed questions of:

• Dr. Bob McGraw, who co-founded RAM Laboratories in 1997, and is the company's Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, responsible for the oversight and technical direction of RAM Labs' applied research for Information Assurance, cyber security, modeling and simulation, and decision science-related efforts.  He is the author/co-author of over 40 papers in the fields of cyber security and modeling and simulation, and he earned his MS and PhD in EE from the University of Virginia.  
• Michael MacFadden, the Chief Engineer and Chief Technology Officer of Solute Consulting, a San Diego-based small business providing engineering, aviation, training, and other consulting services to the federal government and prime contractors.  Michael holds a MS in Computer Science from San Diego State University, and a BS from the Rochester Institute of Technology.
• Susan Wellersdieck, a Senior Analyst with G2 Software Systems, a woman-owned small business based in San Diego that has been providing high-quality software application development and systems engineering solutions since 1989.  Susan has over 30 years of progressive experience in software development and management, with an MBA as well as a BA in Economics from the University of California San Diego.  She is also a certified Program Management Professional (PMP).
• Michael Costello, the Technical Director of Lockheed Martin's Technology Collaboration Center - West in San Diego.  He's has worked in systems engineering and architecture for over 20 years, and is a certified PMP.  Prior to directing TCC-West, Mike worked in Lockheed Martin Corporate Engineering and Technology, where he was the deputy for the Engineering for Affordability Initiative, and worked to establish the Architect Development and Qualification program. 

Here are short versions of the BBP 3.0 initiatives and questions they addressed at considerable length.  I would recommend to you a Google of Mr. Kendall's website in order to fully appreciate these and the other initiatives:

• Improving the Return on Investment in DoD laboratories.  Question:  Do you envision a way for industry, with considerable investments in laboratories, to work with the DoD labs in order to improve return on investment?  Is establishing that working relationship doable at a local level, or would you file that under "too hard"?
• Eliminate Unproductive Processes and Bureaucracy.  Question:  The discussions surrounding Speed to Capability tend to focus on rapid advancements in the technologies.  But what about the business practices affecting Speed to Capability?  A few years ago Dr. Marv Langston blogged about "...the potential impact of changing the primary acquisition metrics from cost, schedule, and performance to Speed to Capability."  He suggested cost, schedule and performance are of secondary importance.  "Building transparency around everything that reduces Speed to Capability would allow bureaucratic processes to be exposed and corrected." Are there innovative T&E efforts that could help address this issue, and what additional transparency might be needed in order to eliminate unproductive processes and bureaucracy?
• Promote Effective Competition by improving technology search and outreach in global markets.  Emphasize competition by creating and maintaining competitive environments. Question:  What are your thoughts on creating and sustaining a competitive environment within T&E?  Are there ways to ensure new sources have opportunities to win their way onto programs?
• Remove Barriers to commercial technology utilization.  Question:  What kinds of innovative T&E efforts might affect the barriers currently preventing technology companies from doing business with DoD?
• Improve Tradecraft in the Acquisition Services.  Increase Small Business participation, including more effective market research.  Question:  What are your thoughts on innovative ways the government could acquire T&E services that would promote small business participation?

As I listened to these experts in their fields, suggestions of  rapid "third party assessments" of candidate technologies was repeatedly emphasized.  Within the world of Navy C4I, government T&E is absolutely essential, otherwise the "third party" rapid yet robust assessments are promoting acceleration to nowhere.  Industry and government can work together to address Mr. Kendall's initiatives, if there is a will to do so.  Government can't go it alone, because they don't have the resources to do all the T&E they want to do or even need to do, and that condition will be getting worse before it gets better.  I would suggest that major C4I systems are still getting to the Fleet without being adequately tested... witness the new racks of the latest shipboard computing equipment subjected to hard crashes because the backup power system in those racks designed and intended to provide battery power after the loss of ship's power weren't programmed to initiate that controlled, graceful shutdown.  The results are akin to unplugging your laptop, then popping out the battery with all your applications running and work not saved... times how many Sailors using that common computing environment?

For those of you in the audience during our panel discussion, I'd very much appreciate your observations and insights.  Constructive and meaningful collaboration is important.  Others who care to join in the discussion please do, and I thank you in advance for your contributions.  ITEA San Diego will be presenting follow-on panels, probably as deep dives into BBP 3.0 initiatives.  You may want to join the ITEA San Diego's LinkedIn group to stay in touch.  
                 

Rapid yet Robust 3rd Party Technology Assessments by Industry, for Industry

Something unusual yet important happened over the past month, but understandably only a select few took notice.  Boarhog LLC successfully completed a Boarhog Logic™ Phase 1 Candidate Technology Assessment (CTA) of an "extra rugged" and powerful server, for a reseller.  From the initial kickoff and handshake to the finished 700+ page assessment report took less than 90 days.  The team of experts was assembled, signed contracts, the representative physical network was built from a relevant functional specification, the Phase 1 assessment plan conceived, automated test software obtained and configured, and the physical integration assessment, the cybersecurity readiness assessment, and the performance assessments were performed against a relevant maritime domain environment.  The report was generated, peer reviewed, and delivered to the client.  Less than 90 days.  The Boarhog Logic™ Phase 1 CTA report revealed to the client how many chat users, emails and file transfers their new server will support before it fails to meet the relevant specification, and whether or not the server's ready as physically configured to be inserted into a production rack of equipment within the targeted environment, and the results of a meticulous evaluation of the guts by information assurance experts.  There's an army of server sales people out there telling the U.S. Navy why their box is better than the other guy's box.  One of them now has an independent, third party objective and relevant assessment to go along with their own slick sheets, and it cost them very little to have that done because it all came together and went away in less than 90 days... firm fixed price. Turn out the lights, shut the doors, shake hands... all done by industry, for industry.

What's the benefit for Navy C4I?  Boarhog Logic™ CTAs are intended to accelerate transition to a Net-Centric infrastructure.  That transition is grounded in a standards-based open architecture that will readily accommodate innovative technologies and will facilitate the retirement of legacy capabilities.  The Boarhog Logic™ CTAs don't cost the government a dime, they increase competition (expanding pool of engaged suppliers), they increase government awareness beyond slick sheets, and they promote Small Business (all contracts for the CTA just completed were with Small Businesses).  Less than 90 days.  More Boarhog Logic™ CTAs are in the planning stages, including on Solid State Devices as replacements for spinning media, and on Predictive Analytic software.

Boarhog LLC... skin in the game... pigs in the breakfast... sic semper ad pullos: thus always to chickens.

Ignite Talk presented during 7th Annual C5ISR Summit

It depends. If I am to speak ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now. -- Woodrow Wilson, upon being asked by a member of his cabinet about the amount of time he spent preparing speeches

I was chosen to deliver an Ignite Talk during this month's C5ISR Government and Industry Partnership Summit in North Charleston, SC.  My students will attest I have been known to burn through about 100 slides on a Monday evening from 6pm to 9pm during the C4ISR class at UCSD Extension.  But 5 minutes, using 20 slides, flipped automatically every 15 seconds was a real challenge.  Also delivering Ignite Talks were IBM, Dell, Microsoft, Nova Power Solutions, Spry Methods and half a dozen other innovative companies.  On the sage advice of a great man I truly admire, I endeavored to allow the slides to do most of the talking about the government's need for Unstructured Testing.  If the summit's Ignite Talks are ever published, I'll endeavor to include a link here.  The 20 slides are on my iPad, which I take almost everywhere... have elevator pitch will travel.              

UCSD offering excellent C4ISR Course commencing 13 January 2014

Continuing Education Credits are provided by UCSD for this 27 hour, 9 convening course held on Monday evenings from 6:00 pm to 9:00 pm, starting 13 January 2014 (with no class on 20 January or 17 February), at the UCSD Extension's University City Center (6256 Greenwich Drive, San Diego).  Sign up for this 4 unit course (CSE-40952) on the UCSD Extension website soon, because seats fill up fast.  Those on the waiting list will be notified when a seat becomes available.   

Past guest lecturers have included Dr. Marv Langston the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (C4I & Space), CAPT DJ LeGoff the PEO C4I Program Manager for Tactical Networks, and Mr. Mike Spencer the Deputy Chief Engineer and Director of Integration and Interoperability (DII) of the Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Command.
    
Students represent a good cross section of industry and the government, interested in an understanding of Command and Control, tactical and satellite Communications systems capabilities and limitations, Computers and Networks including various aspects of virtualization, Intelligence activities and supporting systems, Surveillance methods and resources, and Reconnaissance platforms capabilities and limitations.  The true power of this course resides within the open dialogue, non attribution, among the students and lecturer.  Many students are experts in their chosen field, and lend their insight and experiences to the learning environment.

The class text is Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence.  Discussion of his position on Artificial Intelligence and why truly intelligent machines are certainly possible, but not by continuing down the current path of building ever faster computers with more processing power and more storage running sophisticated programs.

Surprise Surprise... Incumbent wins SPAWAR competition

The Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Command thanked us during our debrief for our competing bid, but in the end the incumbent ITT/Exelis won, again.  The Fleet Systems Engineering Team (FSET) contract has always been held by the current incumbent, over many competitions every 5 years.  The losing competitors this time were four teams lead by SAIC, QinetiQ, Jacobs, and SRA International.  Boarhog LLC was with the very strong SRA team, which also included teaming agreements with Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, McAfee, Secure Missions Solutions, SRC, Salient Federal Tech, C4 Planning Solutions, AMSEC, CUBRC, and many small businesses with current SPAWAR contracts.  The government assigned the SRA team grades of "outstanding" for our management plan and staffing plan, and they indicated our detailed transition plan from incumbent ITT/Exelis was more than adequate.

The powerful SRA team had maritime C4I capabilities covered across the context of the 16 areas laid out in the government's statement of work, and every company on the team had committed to investing their resources as designers, developers, producers, installers, and maintainers of C4I systems afloat and ashore, around the world.  The SRA team was assembled to not only meet the requirements with little risk to transitioning from the incumbent, but to provide SPAWAR's Fleet Readiness Directorate with access to a widest possible range of systems engineering resources and expertise.  The SRA team's staffing plan was populated with many prior FSET members, including the incumbent's prior FSET Program Manager.  The SRA team's offer was within a small single digit difference on price.  But as was the case with the previous SPAWAR competitions for the FSET contract, the incumbent was not to be unseated.

FSET was started as a Small Business Set Aside program awarded to Darlington Inc., who won the FSET contract recompete and was acquired by EDO Corporation, a large business.  The next FSET competition was Full and Open, since the incumbent was now a large business and the government determined after a Sources Sought that there were no longer any small businesses who could do the work.  Therefore, FSET was not to be a Small Business Set Aside.  The incumbent won again, beating out the team of CSC with subcontractors Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, who I understand was the low bidder.  EDO/Darlington was acquired by ITT/Exelis, and five years later SPAWAR awarded to their FSET incumbent, again, at a competitive price.  FSET contract awarded to Excelis

A Vice President of a major defense contractor recently corrected me when I offered that while SPAWAR is pleased to report competing 80% of their contracting opportunities, they award to their incumbent 80% of the time.  He said their extensive analysis indicates that latter number is closer to 91%.  In 2017 SPAWAR will again compete the FSET contract for award in 2018.  There will be competition, even with a 9% probability of winning the work.  What other choice is there?    

Suspicion of NSA includes NIST... who is to be trusted?

Conspiracy theorists will love this... it's not just the NSA, it's also NIST, and therefore probably other federal agencies too.  How many taxpayer dollars have been spent on complying with standards that are purposefully flawed and exploitable?  NSA's NIST Standards