A 21 July 2008, DUSD (AT&L) Memo on Reliability, Availability and Maintainability noted that DOD weapon systems were not achieving the required reliability during developmental testing and subsequently were found unsuitable during Initial Operational Test and Evaluation. Also, higher than anticipated, ownership costs points to insufficient reliability engineering activities and logistics planning during the early acquisition phases to include RAM not being adequately designed into the systems. The Defense Science Board Task Force on Developmental Test and Evaluation recommended that RAM be a mandatory contractual requirement and be addressed at every program review. The memo went on to state that policy shall be developed to implement RAM practices that:
- Ensure effective collaboration between the requirements and acquisition communities in the establishment of RAM requirements that balance funding and schedule while ensuring system suitability and effectiveness in the anticipated operating environment;
- Ensure development contracts and acquisition plans evaluate RAM during system design;
- Evaluate the maturation of RAM through each phase of the acquisition life cycle; and
- Evaluate the appropriate use of contract incentives to achieve RAM objectives.
The contractor shall develop and follow a Reliability Program Plan in order to achieve the following four objectives (1) understand the customer/user's requirements, (2) design for reliability, (3) produce reliable systems, and (4) monitor and assess field reliability. The Reliability Program Plan shall, at minimum, employ each of the Reliability Activities herein and shall address reliability funding, schedule, outputs, and staffing.
The contractor shall implement each of reliability activities with appropriate reliability design and development methods and tools. Information on a variety of reliability methods and tools may be found in the DOD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability. The contractor shall select appropriate methods and describe them in the Reliability Program Plan. The customer may elect to review, comment and negotiate regarding the methods selected by the contractor. The contractor shall identify and employ a set of design-reliability Best Practices. The contractor shall execute all of the Reliability Activities set forth herein using the approaches, methods, and tools described in the customer-approved Reliability Program Plan.
5.7.2 Quality in the Source Selection Criteria
The procedures used to award contracts have traditionally focused on the lowest bid. While this approach enhances competition; quality is not always given adequate consideration. This is especially true when considering the effort required to manage and control "key" and "critical" characteristics. If one of the goals of the DOD acquisition process is to provide the warfighter with "uniform, defect-free products that perform as expected and are affordable," then it is essential that the contractor minimize and control variation on these key/critical product characteristics and their corresponding manufacturing processes.
In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award the contract to an offeror who gives the DOD the greatest confidence that it will best meet the warfighters' requirements affordably. This may result in an award being made to a higher priced offeror where the overall business approach or superior past performance outweighs the cost difference. The application of RAM and quality factors as a part of source selection criteria can be used to develop the "best value" criteria.
Much has been said about warranties in the context of providing assurance or quality. Warranties are used successfully in the commercial world, and they do present a good tool in our quest for quality. As contrasted with the commercial market, however, the majority of DOD purchases are for unique equipments and systems produced in small quantities. Moreover, these equipments are handled and serviced by government personnel and, considering the number of people involved, the complexity of the supply system, and the various performance requirements that cannot be readily tested, it becomes very difficult to effectively administer warranties.
The primary intent for using warranties should be to motivate contractors to improve the quality and reliability of their products, so that they would reap financial benefit by avoiding the warranty cost of repairs and replacements. Warranties are no substitute for quality, and should not be used as a crutch. Simply put, when a system fails to accomplish the mission for which it was intended, the warranty can never compensate for potentially devastating results.
