If the answer is “model programs on the Commercial Operations and Support Savings Initiative”, what is the question or questions? What was COSSI and what questions can it answer.
The questions:
- How can we get more bang for the buck from R&D dollars spent?
- How can we improve the performance of fielded systems while saving money?
- How can we reduce sustainment costs and improve reliability?
The COSSI program demonstrated it can answer all the questions posed. It did so. Several studies describe the program and its positive results. A program like the original COSSI can be executed today more effectively than the original COSSI program.
The original COSSI program was supported by DARPA on behalf of DOD. Original versions of the “other transactions” (OT) statutes 10 U.S.C. 2371 and section 845 (2371b) were used. Key elements included an R&D funder, a buying command, a commercial company that had a current product or mature developmental item that could substitute for a part, component or subsystem of a fielded system. Since an existing system was involved, out year funding was already planned. Savings were determined by a ten-year net present value analysis compared to projected costs.
COSSI proceeded in two phases using either S&T (2371 now 4021) or prototype (845 now 4022) OT contracting techniques. Agreements had two phases. Phase one consisted of the government funding (fully or typically partially) non-recurring engineering to take a commercial product and make it part of a kit that could replace a component of a legacy system. Phase two involved testing and qualification of the kit to verify utility, safety, and cost savings. The R&D organization needed to be partnered with a buying command that made future purchase commitments if agreed performance was met, which significantly boosted transition rates. An example is the change out of a legacy suspension on a fleet of Army trucks with a state-of-the-art suspension. Tire wear on expensive heavy-duty tires was greatly reduced, increasing their useful life and resulting in significant savings. Other examples were more direct such as replacing mono-chrome displays with more reliable multi-colored displays. The prime selection criterion was cost savings, but improved performance and reliability were demonstrated in virtually every case.
A COSSI-like program today could be centrally managed like the original or it could be executed by an individual military service, a command, or even a subordinate organization. R&D organizations and buying commands involved need to be on the same page. The current versions of OT statutes are more congenial to a COSSI-like program than were the original versions. Program Intermediaries under PIAs could be used to aid in outreach. OT consortia could be re-oriented to execute COSSI-like programs (unfortunately with the overhead inherent in such arrangements).
In addition to studies of COSSI, Strategic Institute has preserved various artifacts of the program such as the program description, program guide and some individual project profiles. A COSSI-like program involves solicitation and evaluation techniques somewhat different from standard programs and thought needs to be put into these differences.
The original COSSI reduced operations and support costs. Documented cost savings over ten years were more than thirty dollars saved in Procurement and O&M funds for each dollar of R&D investment. Cost savings, improved performance and reliability await leadership to embrace a program of proven worth and implement an updated version of it.
It is time for so-called defense acquisition “leaders” to replace talk about innovation with critical thinking and true leadership. Are there any critical thinkers or real leaders out there? Study COSSI, improve upon the original. Deliver upgraded capabilities to the warfighter, enhance reliability, reduce sustainment costs. Warfighters and U.S. taxpayers will benefit. Business-as-usual and our enemies will not!