8.5 Programs That Facilitate Manufacturing/Technology Readiness

Recent studies and reports on the acquisition process have stated that ensuring sufficient technology maturity levels, supported by adequate test and evaluation and manufacturing assessments, is an excellent way to avoid cost overruns in acquisition programs. In conjunction with DDR&E representatives, Component S&T Executives are responsible for ensuring that the technologies are mature. In addition, the R&E community, working with all representatives of the defense enterprise, must ensure that necessary S&T investments are made to deliver the appropriate product at the appropriate maturity level at each development phase, allowing successful progression through milestones. One of the primary tools available for reducing risk in acquisition programs is the effective use of prototyping using one of several technology programs. Enhanced prototyping benefits the DOD by serving as a tool to recruit capable scientists and engineers, to develop system engineering and program management skills, to successfully transition technology, and to advance the development of concepts of operation.

Transitioning technology so that it facilitates both technology readiness and manufacturing readiness does not come naturally and can be very difficult to accomplish. To transition technology and mature manufacturing processes successfully requires positive actions by people interacting throughout the system. A marketplace for the technology and manufacturing processes and appropriate applications for those technologies and processes is a necessary ingredient to draw interest in investing in technology and manufacturing transition programs. Figure 8-4 identifies several programs that are designed to assist the community with developing new technologies and maturing the manufacturing processes (these programs are shown identifying their relative position in the acquisition framework). In some cases, the programs offer another source of funds that could be used to support technology and manufacturing readiness.

Figure 8-4 Technology Programs

These following programs will be discussed in greater detail:

• Advanced Technology Demonstrations (ATDs);
• Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration Program (ACTDs);
• Defense Acquisition Challenge Program (DACP);
• Defense Production Act Title III Program (Title III);
• Dual-Use Science and Technology Program (DUST);
• Joint Experimentation Program (JE);
• Manufacturing Technology Program (ManTech);
• Quick Reaction Special Projects ;
• Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR);
• Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR);
• Technology Transition Initiative (TTI);
• Industrial Modernization Incentive Program (IMIP)/Industrial Base Innovation Fund (IBIF);
• Rapid Technology Transition Program (RTT);
• Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Programs (WRAP);
• Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative (COSSI); and
• North American Technology and Industrial Base Organization (NATIBO).

Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) is a process for managing selected high-priority S&T programs. ATDs are reviewed and approved by the services, and funded with service S&T funds. ATDs are intended to evolve and demonstrate new technologies. Technology development benefits when the communities work as a team, beginning early in the process. This could include the S&T, Acquisition and Operations communities. ATDs are a process for managing S&T programs that brings the team together early, and demonstrates a military capability in either:

• Joint warfighting experiment,
• Battle lab experiment,
• Demonstration, and
• Field test, or simulation.

ATDs are used to accelerate the maturation of technology needed by warfighters for either next-generation systems or upgrades to existing legacy systems. ATDs use the IPPD process to ensure collaboration between the communities — S&T, requirements/warfighter, R&D, Test and Evaluation (T&E), sustainment, and industry resulting in early interaction and exchange between the communities, permit experimenting with technology-driven operational issues, weed out unattainable technologies as early as possible, and result in more focused requirements and capability documents.

ATDs require planning, review, and approval at the service or agency level. ATDs have a finite program duration, agreed-upon exit criteria, and typically require transition plans. Accordingly, ATDs require technologies and manufacturing processes that are mature enough to provide a capability that can be used or demonstrated during the demonstration period. Services and agencies must provide full funding for ATDs because no source of external funding exists for this process. Most ATDs are funded with 6.3 funds, respond to high-priority user needs, and have a funded target program. ATDs also are reviewed to ensure that they do not duplicate other programs.

Figure 8-5 ATD Process

The ATD team evaluates technical feasibility, affordability, and compliance with operational and technical architectures, operation and support issues, and user needs as early as possible. This fully integrated approach and focus on operationally-sound capabilities ensures that militarily significant capabilities can be developed, evaluated, and transitioned to the warfighter rapidly.

Services and agencies have processes for nominating and approving ATDs (Army process in Figure 8-5 ) and have plans for managing ATDs. In general, the senior research and technology manager in the organization manages ATDs. Typical requirements for participating in the program are the following:

• A concept that addresses established S&T objectives, and could provide a significant new or enhanced military capability or more cost-effective approach to providing the capability.
• A fully planned and funded program which has a limited duration (usually less than five years, with shorter durations being better).
• Exit criteria and a transition plan that is supported by the user representative and the systems developer.

A program designed to help expedite the transition of mature or nearly mature technologies from the developers to the users. The ACTD program was developed to help adapt the DOD acquisition process to today's economic and threat environments. ACTDs emphasize assessing, maturing, and integrating technology rather than developing it. The goal is to give the warfighter a prototype capability and to support the warfighter in evaluating the capability. These capabilities must be affordable, interoperable, sustainable, and capable of being evolved as the technologies and threats change. The evolutionary acquisition approach is an integral part of the ACTD concept. The warfighters evaluate the capabilities in real military exercises and at a scale sufficient to fully assess military usefulness.

ACTDs are designed to enable users to understand the proposed new capabilities for which there is no user experience by giving the warfighter opportunities to:

• Develop and refine the warfighter's concept of operations to fully exploit the capability of the technology being evaluated.
• Evolve the warfighter's operational requirements as the warfighter gains experience and understanding of the capability.
• Operate militarily useful quantities of prototype systems in realistic military demonstrations and, on that basis, assess the military usefulness of the proposed capability.

There are three possible outcomes. (1) the user sponsor may recommend acquiring the technology and fielding the residual capability that remains after the demonstration phase of the ACTD to provide an interim and limited operational capability; (2) the project is terminated or returned to the technology base if the capability or system does not demonstrate military usefulness; (3) the user's need is fully satisfied by fielding the capability that remains when the ACTD is concluded, and no additional units need to be acquired.

There are several major differences between ACTDs and ATDs. ACTDs are programs, usually employing multiple technologies, which are reviewed by Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), and funded (in part) with OSD ACTD funds. An ATD is actually a process for managing selected high-priority S&T programs. ATDs are reviewed and approved by the services, and funded with service S&T funds.

ACTDs should work with relatively mature technologies to improve the probability of success and the likelihood of transitioning the technology into programs. A recent GAO report addresses this and other factors affecting ACTDs' success. This GAO report concludes that the OSD can improve ACTD outcomes, while noting that the majority of the ACTDs examined did transition some technologies to the user. The GAO found that:

• Some technology was too immature to be effectively demonstrated in the hands of the warfighter, leading to cancellations of demonstrations.
• Services did not provide follow-on funding for some successful ACTD technologies.
• Military utility assessments required in ACTDs have not been conducted consistently.

ACTDs should consider manufacturing and sustainment issues as a part of their program. Historically, manufacturing and sustainment issues have not received a high priority in ACTDs. The long-term success of ACTD initiatives can be improved by considering all of the manufacturing, sustainment, and operational and support issues.

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Advanced Systems and Concepts is responsible for selecting and approving ACTDs. Ideally, a user-developer team, having combined a critical operational need with maturing technology, will develop an ACTD candidate for consideration. The Advanced Systems and Concepts (AS&C) staff is available to assist the team with developing and refining the concept and clarifying the ACTD's basic criteria and attributes. When the details of the concept are defined, a briefing is presented to the DUSD (AS&C). If accepted, a briefing is presented to an advisory group of senior acquisition and operational executives, for their review and assessment. The candidate ACTDs then are presented to the Joint Staff, through the Joint Warfare Capabilities Assessment and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, for their review and recommended priority.

The Defense Acquisition Challenge (DAC) Program is authorized by Title 10, United States Code, Section 2359b and the 2003 Defense Authorization Act, DACP is administered by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Systems & Concepts) and provides opportunities for both innovators and the Department of Defense (DOD). For innovators, it means faster entry to the defense acquisition system. For the DOD Program Manager (PM), it means increased technology insertions to improve systems.

Technological developments and operational needs are emerging faster than ever before. Yet the defense programming and budgeting process cannot always keep up. On the supply side, many of America's companies generating technological innovations have found it difficult to break into the defense market, especially those classified as small and medium-sized U.S. businesses. In an effort to remedy the technology-to-programming lag and overcome the "valley of death," the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program, authorized by Title 10, USC, Sec 2359b and the 2003 Defense Authorization Act, provides opportunities for the increased introduction of innovative and cost-saving commercial technologies or products into existing DOD acquisition programs. Furthermore, the DACP is especially designed to give small and medium-sized companies the opportunity to introduce new technologies and inject innovation into current DOD Programs. To do so, the DACP provides any person or activity within or outside the DOD the opportunity to propose alternatives, known as Challenge Proposals, to existing DOD programs that could result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or operational capability of the systems acquired by that program. As a result of selecting, testing, and inserting the best of these production-ready technologies, the DACP ultimately expands the opportunities for emerging defense suppliers, widens the U.S. defense industrial base, and leverages unique innovations for the benefit of the warfighter.

The Defense Acquisition Challenge Program legislated process is outlined below in Figure 8-6.

Figure 8-6 Defense Acquisition Challenge Program Legislated Process

The Defense Acquisition Challenge Program's objectives are to improve the U.S. warfighter's capabilities and reduce expenditures through:

• Rapidly fielding quality military equipment;
• Eliminating unnecessary duplication of research, development, test, and evaluation;
• Reducing life cycle or procurement costs;
• Enhancing standardization and interoperability;
• Promoting competition by qualifying alternative sources; and
• Improving the U.S. military industrial base.

The mission of the Defense Production Act Title III Program (Title III) is to create assured, affordable, and commercially viable production capabilities and capacities for items that are essential to the national defense. By stimulating private investment in key production resources, Title III helps to:

• Increase the supply, improve the quality, and reduce the cost of advanced materials and technologies needed for the national defense.
• Reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of supply for critical materials and technologies.
• Strengthen the economic and technological competitiveness of the U.S. defense industrial base.

Title III activities lower defense acquisition and life-cycle costs and increase defense system readiness and performance by using higher quality, lower cost, and technologically superior materials and technologies.

Title III authority can be used to address the following:

• Technological obsolescence, i.e., when a newer technology replaces an older one and the capability to produce the older technology falls into disuse and is gradually lost. By using Title III authority, flexible manufacturing capabilities can be created to produce aging technologies efficiently and affordably. Alternatively, the authority can be used to consolidate and maintain production capabilities that otherwise would be lost because of changing market conditions, even though such capabilities are still needed for defense and still can be operated efficiently and profitably.
• Low or irregular demand (i.e., when the demand for an item is inadequate to support continuous production), so the delivery of the item is delayed because of the time needed to obtain materials for producing the item or for the time needed by the production queuing. Title III purchase commitments can be made to consolidate and level demand for key production capabilities, which gives suppliers incentives to maintaining and upgrade these capabilities, and to respond to defense acquisition needs in time. Purchase commitments can also be used to reserve production time to ensure timely access to production resources for fabricating critical defense items.
• Producers exiting the business, i.e., when companies go out of business or drop product lines that no longer fit their business plans. Title III authority can be used to support transferring production capabilities to new sources.

Virtually all Title III projects promote integrating commercial and military production to lower defense costs and enable earlier defense access to, and use of, emerging technologies. The production for both military and civilian markets represents a new thrust for the Title III program, and is referred to as "dual produce." A government–industry working group identifies dual-produce projects, develops a list of general project areas, and publishes a Broad Area Announcement (BAA) based on the list to solicit proposals from industry and DOD organizations. Projects are selected according to potential cost savings — both direct savings from the projects themselves and indirect savings from the broader application of demonstrated capabilities to other defense items.

The Title III program is a DOD -wide initiative under the Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E). Management responsibilities include program oversight and guidance, strategic planning and legislative proposals, approval of new projects, and liaison with other federal agencies and Congress.

The Air Force is the executive agent for the program in DOD. The Title III program office, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is a component of the Manufacturing Technology Division of the Air Force Research Lab. The program office identifies and evaluates prospective Title III projects, submits projects for DDR&E's approval, structures approved projects, implements contracting and other business actions for the projects, oversees active projects, provides for selling and using materials acquired through Title III contracts, and does the planning and programming support for DDR&E.

A dual-use technology is one that has both military utility and sufficient commercial potential to support a viable industrial base. Funding for this program has shifted from OSD to the services. The government's objectives of the Dual-Use Science and Technology (DUST) program are the following:

• Partnering with industry to jointly fund the development of dual-use technologies needed to maintain DOD's technological superiority on the battle-field and industry's competitiveness in the marketplace.
• Making the dual-use development of technologies with industry a normal way of doing business in the services.

These objectives are met by using streamlined contracting procedures and cost sharing between OSD, the services, and industry.

The industry objective for the program is to achieve the following benefits:

• Leverage scarce S&T funding.
• Be a vehicle for forming beneficial partnerships with other firms, defense labs, or universities.
• Gain access to advanced technology.
• Increase the potential for transitioning technologies

Figure 8-7 Joint Experimentation Program

Joint experimentation is defined as the application of scientific experimentation procedures to assess the effectiveness of proposed (hypothesized) joint warfighting concept elements to ascertain if elements of a joint warfighting concept change military effectiveness. The U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) leads the Joint Experimentation program, with support from the Joint Staff, other combatant commands, services, and defense agencies. The Joint Experimentation program examines new warfighting concepts and techniques, either by modeling and simulation or through exercises with actual forces. The results of the experiments are used to shape the concepts, doctrine, and materiel systems requirements for the future joint force. One of the focus areas is joint interoperability to ensure that our service capabilities operate as one unified force during future conflicts. Selected high-payoff technologies may be examined during the joint experimentation. This program works closely with the ACTD program, assisting with improving and demonstrating ACTD products.

The Joint Experimentation Program is one of the key ingredients for the Joint Integration role of USJFCOM. The joint concepts being developed and explored by the Joint Experimentation Program offer the potential to significantly transform the way future U.S. forces accomplish their missions.

The Joint Experimentation program has limited funding. The majority of the funding is used to get the military units involved to participate and support the events. In general, candidate technologies must address major future joint force capability shortfalls. The technology must be sufficiently mature to demonstrate in an actual exercise. In certain cases, surrogate capabilities may be used, or the system may be represented in computer simulations. Entry is easiest for contractors that submit a fully-funded proposal.

The J-9 (Joint Experimentation) staff at USJFCOM, Norfolk, Virginia, has more information about opportunities and needed capabilities. Each service has its own experimentation programs and participates in the Joint Experimentation program. The relevant service experimentation point of contact (e.g., U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command) can provide information about opportunities.

Figure 8-8 DoD Mantech Thrust

The DOD Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) program focuses on the need of weapons system programs for affordable, low-risk development and production. The mission to anticipate and close gaps in defense manufacturing capabilities makes the program a crucial link between technology invention and industrial applications – from system development through sustainment.

The program is the crucial link between technology invention and development, and industrial applications. The program matures and validates emerging manufacturing technologies to support low-risk implementation in industry and DOD facilities, e.g., depots and shipyards. The program addresses production issues, beginning during the development of the technology. The program continues to support the system during the transition into its production and sustainment phases. By identifying production issues early and providing timely solutions, the ManTech program reduces risk and improves affordability by addressing potential manufacturing problems before they occur. The program vision is to realize a responsive, world-class manufacturing capability to affordably meet the warfighters' needs throughout the defense system life cycle.

ManTech has developed a strategy that balances its traditional emphasis on processing and fabrication technology solutions with active support for broader defense manufacturing needs. Strategic Thrust 1 is committed to manage and deliver processing and fabrication solutions in an area predominantly within ManTech's span of control. Thrusts 2, 3, and 4 commit active support for enterprise level solutions, manufacturability and process maturity, and manufacturing infrastructure and workforce, respectively, and recognize it is beyond the program's charter and resources to fully satisfy these thrusts. Goals are defined in all four strategic thrusts with sufficient description to enable focused action.

The USD (AT&L), established a team of highly qualified acquisition professionals to advise the Under Secretary on actions that can be taken to expedite the acquisition of needed systems. This requirement was addressed in Conference Re-port 107-772, House Report 107-436, and in H.R. 4546 House Bill, Sec. 809. Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition Team. The duties of the team shall include advice on:

• Industrial base issues, including the limited availability of suppliers;
• Technology development and technology transition issues;
• Issues of acquisition policy, including the length of the acquisition cycle;
• Issues of testing policy and ensuring that weapons systems perform properly in combat situations;
• Issues of procurement policy, including the impact of socio-economic requirements; and
• Issues relating to compliance with environmental requirements.

Quick Reaction Special Projects provides flexibility to respond to emergent DOD needs within budget cycle. It takes advantage of technology breakthroughs in rapidly evolving technologies. Completion of projects is to be within six to twelve months.

Congress created the SBIR program in 1982 to help small businesses participate more in federal R&D. Each year, federal departments and agencies are required to reserve part of their R&D funds for awarding to small businesses under the SBIR program. DOD's SBIR program funds early-stage R&D projects at small technology companies — projects that serve a DOD need and could be commercialized in the private-sector or military markets.

                     Figure 8-9 DoD Small Business Innovation Research Program

The DOD SBIR program, funded at over one billion dollars annually, is made up of 12 participating components: Army, Navy, Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Chemical Biological Defense (CBD), Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), and Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

The Small Business Innovation Research program funds early-stage R&D at small technology companies and is designed to:

• Stimulate technological innovation;
• Increase private sector commercialization of federal R&D;
• Increase small business participation in federally funded R&D; and
• Foster participation by minority and disadvantaged firms in technological innovation.

To participate in the SBIR program:

• A firm must be a U.S. for-profit small business of 500 or fewer employees;
• Work must be performed in the United States;
• During Phase I, a minimum of 2/3 of the effort must be performed by the proposing firm; a minimum of 1/2 of the effort in Phase II; and
• The Principal Investigator must spend more than 1/2 of the time employed by the proposing firm.

The Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program is a small business program that expands funding opportunities for federal innovation R&D. Central to the program is the expansion of the public- and private-sector partnership, including joint venture opportunities for small businesses and the nation's premier nonprofit research institutions. The program's most important role is to foster the innovation necessary to meet the nation's S&T challenges.

The DOD STTR program, funded at over one hundred million dollars annually, is made up of six participating components: Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and Defense Research & Engineering (DDR&E).

In 1992, Congress established the STTR pilot program. STTR is similar in structure to SBIR but funds cooperative R&D projects involving a small business and a research institution (i.e., university, federally-funded R&D center, or nonprofit research institution). The purpose of STTR is to create, for the first time, an effective vehicle for moving ideas from our nation's research institutions to the market, where they can benefit both private sector and military customers.

To participate in the STTR program:

• A firm must be a U.S. for-profit small business of 500 or fewer employees; there is no size limit on the research institution;
• Research institution must be a U.S. college or university, FFRDC or non-profit research institution;
• Work must be performed in the United States;
• The small business must perform a minimum of 40 percent of the work and the research institution a minimum of 30 percent of the work in both Phase I and Phase II;
• The small business must manage and control the STTR funding agreement; and
• The principal investigator may be employed at the small business or research institution.

The Technology Transition Initiative (TTI) was called for in the FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, which provided limited funding for selected technology transition projects. The objectives of the (TTI) are to accelerate the transition of new technologies into operational capabilities within the armed forces; and to successfully demonstrate new technologies in relevant environments.

Once a decision is made to move a technology from the S&T program into acquisition, it often takes 2-3 years to obtain procurement funding to buy the product. During that time, many technology projects either become obsolete or are cancelled due to a lack of funding. To help address this need, Congress established the TTI in 2002 to bridge the gap between demonstration and production of Science and Technology (S&T) funded technology.

Key provisions of the code include:

• TTI is intended to accelerate the introduction of new technologies into operational capabilities for the armed forces.
• TTI can successfully demonstrate new technologies in relevant environments.
• The science and technology and acquisition executives of each military department and each appropriate Defense Agency and the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands nominate projects to be funded.
• The TTI Program Manager identifies promising projects that meet DOD technology goals and requirements in consultation with the Technology Transition Council.
• The TTI Program Manager and the appropriate acquisition executive can share the transition cost. Service/Agency contribution can be up to 50 percent of the total project cost. A project cannot be funded for more than four years.

Numerous Defense Authorization Acts have provided the ManTech program with funds to ensure that investments are made to address defense industrial base shortfalls especially related to surge production requirements and diminishing sources of defense material. This program is a sub-set of DOD ManTech to ensure that investments are made to address shortfalls in manufacturing processes and technologies in support of DOD long-term and short-term needs. Current (2011) IBIF technical interest areas include:

• Adaptive Machining,
• Automation of Non-Destructive E analysis,
• Electro-Optical Targeting System Producibility,
• Low Observable Technologies,
• Metal Direct Digital Manufacturing,
• Optical Windows, and
• Technical Data Packages for the Digital Enterprise.

The mission of the Rapid Technology Transition (RTT) program is to increase the rate that new, innovative, and potentially disruptive technologies are inserted into DOD acquisition programs and into the hands of the warfighter. The RTT program is structured to bring transition efforts to closure quickly, and to provide execution year funding for a rapid start, bridging the gap until the program of record can fund the completion of the technology insertion.

Rapid transition opportunities occur when a sufficiently mature technology is identified that can meet a particular need on a timetable which matches that of an acquisition program, and is supported by a business case which justifies the associated cost and schedule risk. RTT is designed to be pro-active in identifying opportunities and to work with resource sponsors, warfighters, acquisition sponsors (PEOs), and Program Managers (PM) in constructing viable technology transition efforts.

To be considered for RTT funding a proposal must meet the following criteria:

• Proposed technology can transition to acquisition in 24 months or less.
• Proposed technology has Program & Fiscal Support:
  • Requires no more than $2 million in RTT funding,
    Purchase/POM Commitment,
  • Supportable Funding Profile,
  • Requirement/Resource Sponsor (OPNAV & USMC P&R),
  • Acquisition Sponsor (PEO/DRPM), and
  • Fleet Sponsorship (USFFC or USMC).
• Proposed technology is feasible:
  • Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or higher,
  • Navy/USMC Infrastructure, Policy, and CONOP support, and
  • Supportable Business Case (Return on Investment, Improved Capability, Reduced Total Ownership Cost, Urgent Need, Accelerated Capability Introduction).

The Army established the WRAP to address the gap in funding that exists because of the time required to plan, program, budget, and receive appropriations for procuring a new technology. WRAP was designed to shorten the acquisition cycle and be a bridge between experimentation and systems acquisition. The goal was to put new weapons in the hands of soldiers faster and cheaper. Candidates for the WRAP were selected according to urgency of need, technical maturity, affordability, and effectiveness. To promote program stability, candidates received funding for the first two years, which allowed time to build them into the overall budget.

The Army used WRAP for several programs: the Stryker, its new lightweight combat vehicle; the lightweight laser designator rangefinder, used to determine the range of a target and relay that information back to tanks, artillery, or aircraft; and radio frequency tags, a computer tracking system used to pinpoint equipment quickly and easily. The Army is no longer funding WRAP, but is developing other initiatives to rapidly transition technology to warfighters.

The Air Force Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process (AF WRAP), which is an ongoing program, is a rigorous process that speeds the initial acquisition decision and allocation of funds for a small number of competitively selected projects that either increase warfighter capability or significantly reduce costs. AF WRAP can accelerate implementing and fielding of projects meeting the immediate needs of the warfighter. AF WRAP quickly makes available newly matured, often pivotal technology. The AF WRAP candidate review ensures the smooth transition of selected candidates to operational capabilities that are acquired and sustained as part of the baseline Air Force program.

WRAP funding is allocated in the execution year to support selected projects for as long as two years. Major commands selected to receive FY02 WRAP funds have committed to funding, developing, procuring, and sustaining their selected project.

AF WRAP candidates approved in FY02 include the Panoramic Night Vision Goggles (PNVG), increasing night vision goggle field of view from 40 to 100 degrees; the remote casualty locator and assessment device, a low-cost, hand-held, battery-powered device that enables the user to "see" through walls, rubble, wood, and earth to locate and assess the condition of casualties; and the Information For Global Reach — Aerovac, which provides continuous, seamless exchange of mobility- and medical-related C2 and patient health information among fixed, airborne, deploying, and deployed mobility and medical elements.

Many DOD systems require maintenance long beyond the useful life initially anticipated. Extending the service life of military systems increases the costs of ownership. For the purposes of COSSI, O&S costs are the costs of owning and operating a military system, including the costs of personnel, consumables, goods and services, and sustaining the support and investment associated with the peacetime operation of a weapon system. One way to reduce O&S costs is to take advantage of the commercial sector's technological innovations by inserting commercial technology into fielded weapon systems. The Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative (COSSI) was initiated under 10 U.S. Code 2511 to develop and test methods for reducing DOD Operations and Support (O&S) cost by inserting commercial items into fielded military systems. COSSI is a two-stage process:

1. In stage I of each selected project, COSSI and the chosen proposer will share the costs of developing and testing the kit. (There is no minimum cost share required); and
2. If Stage I is successful, the Military Customer may then purchase reasonable production quantities of the kit in Stage II

The North American Technology and Industrial Base Organization (NATIBO) is not a program but rather another resource available to American and Canadian program managers. NATIBO was chartered to promote a cost effective, healthy technology and industrial base that is responsive to the national and economic security needs of the United States and Canada. Current policy calls for a national defense force that derives its strength and technical superiority from a unified commercial/military industrial base. NATIBO can provide access to a broader national manufacturing and technology base especially where defense downsizing could jeopardize basic national security goals. NATIBO can help unify the industrial base by applying the most modern industrial products, processes, practices, and standards of management and manufacturing.

The NATIBO can address the challenges of advancing and maintaining technological superiority in light of reduced government research and development funding by providing funding for industrial base projects that involve Canadian companies. The criteria used for selecting technologies to study through this program are:

• The candidate is a key technology area of high interest;
• The candidate has potential for broad military and commercial application;
• Development and/or production exists in both the U.S. and Canada; and
• There is a good window of opportunity for investment and application.

In summary, NATIBO's primary purpose is to identify and analyze key industrial sectors that are critical to defense, assess the viability of these sectors, identify issues and barriers related to sector viability, and develop strategies to enhance and sustain the health of the marketplace.