Operational Testing: Redefining Industry Role.

• Position: Industry participation in military testing of defense systems

Besal, R.E.

Whitehead, Steven K.

Contractor access does not guarantee faster, cheaper acquisition process

According to some defense contractors, a closer and more direct working relationship between the operational testers and industry is warranted and necessary. While we agree with that premise, we still do not believe, as some contractors have said, that operational testing is the "long pole in the tent" in fielding a system, and that giving industry more access to program documentation will, in some manner, significantly improve the acquisition process.

While some small increase in efficiencies might be possible, we suggest that industry look elsewhere for significant gains. Currently, Navy operational testing averages less than 1 percent of the total program cost and takes less than 7 percent of program development time (assuming five-year fielding effort). By these measures, the Navy operational test process is efficient and effective.

The Reality

The acquisition process will not be noticeably shorter or cheaper with industry observation of testing and access to documents. What is needed is a shift in the pervasive mindset within the acquisition community that:

* The war-fighter needs it now. Program managers often use this sales pitch. But what the war-fighter really needs is a system that works reliably when he needs it the most--during combat. A system that works in an unstressed, non-threatening situation is useless if it fails to perform during combat.

* We can make it right after we get it in the fleet. Providing war-fighters with a system that does not meet either their needs or requirements is a professional and moral disservice. Planning to "fix it after it's fielded" places the operational tester in a no-win situation. We are charged to evaluate system performance to the level stated in the operational requirements document. If the system can't perform to that level, it fails. If you know it won't perform to that level beforehand, make that known and work the issue out with the requirements sponsor and operational tester. It's frustrating for us (and expensive for industry) to find our after planning an operational test and expending funds that someone on the developmental side knew the system was unable to perform, but didn't say anything in time to adjust planning.

* "We can do it faster, better, and cheaper." Edward Comstock, principal assistant for acquisition, programming and budgeting in the office of the chief of naval operations said, "When a program gets down to the brass tacks...