Chapter 6
Capability acquisition
Overview of the capability acquisition phase
6.1
The second major phase of the capability life cycle concerns the
acquisition or procurement of an appropriate materiel system to meet the
identified requirements or establishment of the approved capability solution. This
phase covers the period from government approval for a project (at second pass)
to the transition of the acquired equipment into service. During the
acquisition phase, the DMO works with industry to turn government-endorsed
requirements into functional military equipment.[1]
The project will move out of this phase and into the sustainment or third phase
when the capability is transitioned from the DMO to the end user, namely the
Defence Services. Whilst responsibility for the acquisition rests with the DMO,
the respective Capability Manager will give advice on the capability the DMO
needs to deliver. Once acquired by the DMO, the equipment is then entered into
service by the Capability Manager.
6.2
Both Kinnaird and Mortimer emphasised the importance of the DMO
developing into a more business-like organisation.[2]
As Kinnaird emphasised, the role of DMO is to manage the acquisition and
support of Defence equipment.[3]
Recommendations emanating from the respective reviews focused on accountability
and improving governance across the Defence agencies including the DMO as well
as improving performance across projects including skill development and
contract management.
6.3
Both the Kinnaird Review (recommendation 6) and Mortimer Review
(recommendation 5.1) supported the establishment of DMO as an Executive Agency
under the Public Service Act 1999 whilst retaining its status as a
Prescribed Agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
The government, however, did not agree with such recommendations. When the
issue was raised during committee hearings, DMO representatives argued that
there were no significant advantages in DMO operating under an executive agency
model.[4]
The committee intends, however, to consider the evidence in support of the
change and of the rationale for it.
Process
6.4
The various stages in the acquisition phase include:
-
release of tender document and completion of tender evaluation;
- development of a Contract Negotiating Directive—providing the
terms of reference and constraints within which the chief Commonwealth
negotiator is required to operate and establish a negotiation team;
- commencement of the contract comprising Conditions of Contract
(or the rules of engagement between the Commonwealth and contractor for the
operation of the contract) and a Statement of Work (which represents the work
undertaken by the contractor and includes contract milestones) and contract
start-up activities;
- management of the contract by:
- tracking changes that are made to the Contract Baseline and
control over personnel who may order or agree to changes and thereby
potentially prevent the Commonwealth from exercising its rights under the
contract;
- monitoring and reviewing the performance indicators, standards
and risks throughout the life of the project;
- agreeing on informal remedial action in the early stages of
underperformance and identifying appropriate counter-action; and
- capability realisation and creation of a Project Transition Plan
to move the project from Project to Sustainment Managers.[5]
6.5
The key milestones in relation to a project at the acquisition stage may
include the following:
1. release of tender
documents and completion of tender evaluation;
2. contract signature;
3. completion of
requirements definition reviews, preliminary design reviews, and detailed
design reviews;
4. commencement of
systems integration;
5. commencement of test
readiness reviews;
6. completion of system
acceptance;
7. delivery of the first
increment of material systems;
8. commencement of the
transition of capability to service; and
9. project closure activities.[6]
Alignment of contracting with
commercial practice
6.6
As part of efforts to make DMO into a commercially oriented body,
Mortimer argued that the DMO should establish a General Manager–Commercial
position to manage strategic commercial issues and acquisition strategy and to
support the CEO to 'achieve a more business-like focus throughout the
organisation'.[7]
Mortimer also recommended that the DMO align its contracting to commercial
practice and apply public-private partnerships (PPP) to appropriate projects.[8]
6.7
Towards this end, the General Manager–Commercial, appointed in February
2007, works with industry to identify key procurement and contracting issues
that do not align with commercial practice. Changes have been made to templates
and policies to reflect this requirement.[9]
In relation to PPP, Defence held that the Mortimer recommendations had been
implemented to the extent that:
On a project by project basis DMO is applying the Defence PPP
checklist to evaluate capabilities suitable for acquisition under PPP
arrangements. DMO liaises with the PPP centre of excellence in Defence Support
Group in relation to PPP opportunities.[10]
Structure
CDG to DMO
6.8
Mortimer recognised the transition of a project from CDG to the DMO
following second pass approval as a 'critical step' in the capability
development cycle demanding close cooperation prior to second pass approval.[11]
6.9
The two key documents that specify roles and responsibilities which are
agreed to and signed off on by the relevant Capability Manager (CM), DMO and
CDG include the Joint Project Directive (Joint PD) and Materiel Acquisition
Agreement (MAA). The Joint PD is issued by the Secretary of Defence and CDF
following second pass approval and it covers the time from that approval to the
closure of the acquisition business case. In terms of the transition of the
project from CDG, the DCDH describes the Joint PD as the means through which
this is achieved:
After Second Pass approval, management responsibility for the
project is transferred to the CM through the Joint PD. Before handing over
leadership to the CM, changes made to a project's scope, schedule and budget at
Second Pass must be reflected in the Joint PD and other relevant project
documents. Once these changes are made, the acquisition agency assumes
responsibility for managing the CDD and associated documents. Where the DMO is
the acquisition agency, they begin to report against the MAA at this stage.[12]
6.10
Thus, the Joint PD assigns accountabilities and responsibilities to:
- the Capability Manager for overall responsibility for the
in-service realisation of the capability;
- CEO of the DMO through terms and conditions in the MAA; and
- other key enablers including the Chief Information Officer and
Chief Defence Scientists for provision of FIC elements.[13]
6.11
The MAA is an agreement between the CEO of the DMO, relevant Capability
Manager and Chief of CDG. As noted in the previous chapter, a draft First to
Second Pass MAA is required as part of first pass approval. Its development is
the responsibility of the CDG Capability Systems Division Desk Officer who will
work in conjunction with the DMO Emerging Project Team and in consultation with
the Capability Manager and DMO Systems Program Office.[14]
At second pass, the draft MAA will detail the scope and cost of the acquisition
and 'commit the signatory agencies to completing assigned tasks and providing
the necessary resources and assets to ensure effective management of the
Acquisition Phase'. The draft MAA is finalised and approved by government after
second pass.[15]
Defence Materiel Organisation
6.12
During the acquisition process, the DMO works with industry to turn
government-endorsed requirements into functional military equipment. The DMO
Acquisition and Sustainment Manual recognises that the responsibility,
authority and accountability for management of the acquisition phase is vested
in the DMO's line management, the 'focal point of which is the designated
Project Manager for the acquisition project'.[16]
6.13
Mortimer emphasised that Defence must hold the DMO to account for the
provision of the equipment and support it has agreed to deliver. Mortimer's
Recommendation 5.8 states therefore that 'Defence should manage its
relationship with DMO in terms of costs and delivery against performance
levels'. Furthermore, Mortimer highlighted that there can be gaps between what
a project delivers and the expectations of the Capability Manager at the point
of acceptance into service. The Mortimer Review held that in principle,
therefore, DMO should be held to account for delivering equipment and services
as set out in the MAA.[17]
6.14
In accordance with Mortimer's recommendation, DMO, as acquisition
agency, has primary responsibility for the acquisition or procurement of an
appropriate materiel system as set out in the MAA. The MAA specifies the scope,
schedule, price, milestone completion criteria and customer for work assigned
to DMO for an individual project as approved by government. In fulfilling these
responsibilities, DMO is required to advise the relevant Capability Manager and
CDG of project progress against the MAAs.[18]
Mr Warren King, DMO CEO explained the importance of the MAA:
Where we are now, after the Mortimer review, is that the
project directive, which is the enunciation of what governments agreed, is now
formalised. It has three participants in that, the CDG, DMO and the capability
manager. Then the MAA, which is the agreement between DMO and Defence to what
they are going to supply when, is a derivation of that. Again, all three signed
to it.[19]
6.15
Another area of concern to the reviews in relation to accountability was
that of acquisition contracts. Pappas emphasised the importance of contractual
conditions creating the right incentives for performance improvements and
recommended that contracts should be structured to retain competitive tension
at prime, second and third tier contractor levels, and ensure contracts include
incentives for annual improvements.[20] Mortimer
recognised the importance of establishing critical milestones as a means of
increasing accountability and alignment. The DMO Acquisition and Sustainment
Manual notes that contract milestones are a requirement under the Statement
of Work which details the work undertaken by the contractor with completion of
a milestone triggering a milestone payment under the Conditions of Contract.[21]
However, evidence before the committee suggested that critical milestones were
not always adhered to as the ANAO found in relation to the Super Seasprite
project which was ultimately cancelled in 2008:
Critical milestones, if not achieved, are intended to allow
Defence to stop all contract payments until the milestone is achieved. The
ANAO's audit of the Super Seasprite project found that although critical
milestones were included in the original contract for some design reviews,
these protections were not preserved.[22]
6.16
The committee is interested in establishing the key checks and
safeguards in relation to accountability mechanisms such as contract milestones
and the extent to which they are enforced and adhered to.
Capability Development Group
6.17
Air Marshal Harvey explained that CDG operates as the sponsor of a post-second
pass project once it is approved or as the 'owner of the scope that government
has approved'. CDG is responsible, therefore, for ensuring that performance meets
cost, schedule and capability requirements approved by government. Air Marshal Harvey
continued:
We will be involved in any discussions on clarification of
exactly what the scope was and what the risks will be. We work on behalf of the
capability manager and with the capability manager to see what was required and
what the mitigation strategies are on the way ahead, how you might address the
risk as you go through. So we keep involved throughout the process.[23]
6.18
Mortimer highlighted the importance of a robust process to manage scope
changes after second pass. He noted that it was inappropriate to 'arbitrarily
apply project contingency funding to facilitate changes in scope as the
application of contingency would 'depend on a thorough analysis of the original
project scope and the scope change envisaged'.[24]
Further, Mortimer recommended that changes to the scope of projects 'should
occur through a disciplined process that considers the merit of the change
mindful of the impact on cost and schedule'.[25]
6.19
As the Defence agency responsible for project scope and managing changes
to it, CDG is responsible for recommending and obtaining approval from Defence
or government for any proposed changes to alter the specific project scope,
cost, workforce, schedule or risk parameters agreed by government. The DCDH allows
for any changes within the project parameters agreed by government to be
considered and approved by authorised Defence officials. Such approvals are
exercised providing the Capability Manager has concurred and 'there is no
additional workforce requirement, or any adverse change to the risk profile of
the project, or the whole of life costs to the capability system'.[26]
Therefore, all proposed changes to the capability baseline must be cleared by
the Chief of CDG in consultation with the Strategic Policy Division and the
Capability Manager before 'the acquisition agency approves any engineering
change proposal, contact change proposal, wavier or deviation that affects the
approved baseline'. Whether a project baseline change is approved by Defence or
government will depend on the Project Approval threshold and the accumulation
rule.[27]
6.20
One of the key tasks of CDG throughout the acquisition phase is to
contribute to remediation plans for projects of concern. CDG will provide
information on whether a project will cost more and whether funds are available
within the DCP to draw on. Furthermore, as Mr King, CEO of the DMO explained:
If it [the remediation plan] has a knock-on effect, for
example, on other capabilities that are also being introduced under the DCP
that are dependent on it or interrelated with it then the CDG look at those
dependencies and the impact on the broader capability program we are
introducing, to make sure we understand all the consequences of that
remediation. We need all three parties [CDG, DMO and Capability Managers]
coming up [with] the solution, understanding the impacts of that solution and
then implementing it.[28]
6.21
On 6 May 2011, the Minister for Defence noted that Defence would accelerate
the implementation of Mortimer's recommendation concerning the creation of a
more disciplined process for changes in scope of a project, including the
requirement that Defence seek government approval for significant changes to
the scope of a project.[29]
The statement raises questions about the veracity of current practice and
whether government approval as a policy requirement is appropriately sought. It
goes to the question of adherence to necessary checks and balances within the
system to ensure the integrity of the process.
Capability Managers
6.22
Kinnaird argued that Capability Managers (CMs) should be responsible for
monitoring and reporting to government on the whole of capability from second
pass approval through to the retirement of the capability. Kinnaird
emphasised, however, that this responsibility did not imply 'any authority to
directly instruct the DMO on any aspect of its function as the manager of
equipment acquisition'.[30] Mortimer
argued that such a recommendation provided for an oversight function but left
open the question of a coordination function during the acquisition phase.
Mortimer held that whilst the delivery of capability elements was the
responsibility of individual agencies, there remained a need for a single point
of accountability to coordinate all facets of capability during this phase.[31]
To meet this requirement, Mortimer recommended that Defence implement a
framework through the CMs to coordinate all the inputs to developing military
capability (Recommendation 3.3) and that CMs provide advice on the status of
capability development projects for which they are accountable (Recommendation
3.4).[32]
6.23
Defence informed the committee that CMs have 'prime responsibility'
during the acquisition phase for ensuring that the project as a whole is
brought together through the coordination of the Fundamental Inputs to
Capability (FIC).[33]
Vice CDF, Air Marshal Binskin explained that CMs are now central to the whole
process:
Right up front now the capability manager signs off on
projects as they— and it is all part of their maturement as they go through—that
it will meet the needs, will there be capability gaps or not, risks that are
foreseen, and whether the service or the capability manager can even accept
that into service in the time. So the capability manager is more up front now.[34]
6.24
Air Marshal Binskin argued that as CMs are responsible for signing off
on the MAA for the delivery of capability, Defence is assured that the DMO is
procuring what the CM wants or has agreed to and that the DMO must deliver to
that MAA.[35]
People
Defence Materiel Organisation
6.25
Kinnaird found that DMO Project Managers lacked the skills and
experience required to manage technically complex and financially risky
projects. He noted the remuneration level and structure within the DMO made it
difficult for the organisation to attract and retain sufficient numbers of
quality staff. For his view, such a situation had contributed to high staff
turnover which was detrimental to both ongoing project development as well as
relations with industry.[36]
Recognising the need for highly skilled project managers, Kinnaird recommended
that they be drawn from the military, industry or public service, be appointed
by the head of the DMO and have minimum tenures of five years.[37]
6.26
Kinnaird found that approximately 25 per cent of over 2000 DMO staff
were from the military. Further, he noted that the short military posting cycle
often combined with no clear requirement for minimum project management skills,
was not 'consistent with the development of the professional project management
culture and the commercial focus essential for enhancing the DMO's
performance'.[38]
Kinnaird found that this situation was exacerbated if military staff regarded
themselves as 'remaining within their respective Service reporting chain rather
than being accountable to the head of the DMO'.[39]
While acknowledging that Service loyalty was an integral part of military
culture, he argued that it should not be confused with the reporting
arrangements of a commercially focused organisation. The Kinnaird Review's
recommendation, which emanated from these findings, was that the head of DMO
should be consulted on military postings to the DMO and accept only those ADF
personnel who possess the requisite skills and experience.[40]
Notwithstanding this recommendation, however, Kinnaird also recommended that
the Service Chiefs retain the right as CMs to place military staff in the DMO
to monitor acquisition and logistics placement on their behalf.[41]
6.27
In response to the staffing challenges within the DMO, Mortimer
recommended that the CEO of DMO should have greater flexibility to manage the
organisation's workforce including control over appointments, remuneration and
performance management.[42]
In June 2009, the government agreed to Mortimer's recommendation 5.9 noting
that the CEO of DMO would manage DMO's workforce under a total labour cost
model with the powers and functions devolved to the CEO. The government further
noted that the autonomy of the CEO to exercise such powers over the DMO would
be codified accordingly.[43]
6.28
Air Marshal Harvey, Chief of CDG, explained to the committee that the DMO
has worked progressively towards an integrated professional workforce with
'vocational, university and professional accreditation and has introduced a
professional industry standard certification framework for procurement and
contracting staff'.[44]
In response to concerns raised in evidence and by the committee regarding the
need to attract and retain engineers specifically, the DMO emphasised that it
attracts engineers and technical staff via a number of avenues. These include
the materiel TAFE employment scheme, materiel graduation scheme, materiel
undergraduate scheme and the engineering undergraduate scholarship at the
Australian Defence Force Academy. Furthermore, to attract and recruit high
quality engineers and technical staff, memoranda of agreement have been
established with Engineers Australia and the Australia Maritime College. In
addition, the DMO is continuing to support the Australasian Procurement and
Construction Council initiative to develop strategic procurement courses at
Australian Technology Network universities and the University of Canberra.[45]
6.29
Mr King, CEO, also noted that the DMO was particularly interested in
attracting and retaining individuals with skills at the Australian Public
Service or equivalent Executive Level 1 and 2. With this in mind, Mr King
explained that a building Defence capability plan has been introduced which
'allows some flexibility to add increased base salary payments and retention
payments for a commitment to stay three years or something like that'. He noted
that this initiative had proven successful in retaining skills.[46]
6.30
Notwithstanding these initiatives and improvements, the committee
received considerable evidence which emphasised the importance of:
- DMO retaining skills and project management in-house throughout
the life of a project;[47]
- DMO and Defence more broadly retaining an adequate number of
appropriately qualified engineers who are in a position to influence the
procurement process;[48]
and
- the challenges in doing so within current and future workforce
constraints.[49]
6.31
The committee notes that the DMO sets itself to be the 'premier program
management, logistics and engineering services organisation in Australia'.[50]
Notwithstanding the evidence, which suggested that improvements need to be made
in the area of program management, a question for the committee is whether the
DMO's aspiration in relation to program management is appropriate.
6.32
Furthermore, evidence before the committee emphasised the importance of
DMO attracting personnel with commercial acumen and technological knowledge. In
this regard, industry and other stakeholders supported the approach of paying
private sector salaries where necessary to secure such skills and private
sector incentives and sanctions to drive performance.[51]
6.33
While building the required skills base is central, evidence before the
committee also emphasised the need for greater discipline within Defence to
implement its own policies and to maintain adequate records to support
appropriate monitoring of capability development performance.[52]
Indeed, the gap between policy and practice is a constant theme throughout
evidence to the committee. Some submitters argued that the consequent lack of
common understanding of procurement policy across the DMO was reflected in its
'poor implementation and apparent non compliance' with the various manuals,
schedules and processes. [53]
For industry, this lack of application can translate into an inconsistent
message and different expectations. The committee intends to pursue these
matters.
Defence industry
6.34
The Mortimer Review drew attention to DMO analysis which demonstrated
that approximately 50 per cent of project schedule slippage is due to delays by
local or overseas suppliers.[54]
Mortimer identified two primary factors behind this failure including the fact
that industry was working with capacity constraints imposed by the skills shortage
in the wider economy which was particularly acute in relation to skilled
engineers. In response to DMO analysis, which suggested that industry may need
to recruit up to 20 000 skilled workers over the next decade, Mortimer
suggested that the government consider measures to assist industry. In this
regard, he recommended that the government work with industry and state
governments to address the skills shortage.[55] The
second primary factor behind slippage was identified as 'poor scheduling,
planning and risk appreciation by industry'.[56]
In relation to this factor, Mortimer noted that just as Defence and DMO find it
hard to formulate 'realistic expectations of project progress, so too does industry'.[57]
6.35
Defence held that the majority of schedule delay was caused by slower
than forecast supply from industry in the acquisition stage but did not provide
explanation for the slow response.[58]
Other submitters argued that industry had failed to deliver capability to the
contracted schedule across a large number of projects but again did not go to
the reasons why.[59]
This is another area for committee consideration.
6.36
The committee recognises that there are a number of initiatives underway
to address the skills challenges within industry including the Industry
Skilling Program Enhancement (ISPE) package. According to Defence, major
achievements in implementing the package include the establishment of the
Defence Industry Innovation Centre and three Defence Industry School Pathways
Programs. Other initiatives include funding for an industry component of the
Defence Technical Scholarship Program, Engineering Scholarship Program, Defence
Industry Sector Branding Strategy as well as expansion of the DMO Institute and
Masters of Military Systems Integration and introduction of a Masters of
Systems Support Engineering.[60]
Furthermore, in August 2011, the minister announced that 109 companies would
share in nearly $14 million for more than 4000 trained places to boost the
skills of the Defence industry workforce including $1.4 million to support
approximately 250 apprentices in trades including aerospace skills, engineering
fabrication and electro technology.[61]
6.37
Moreover, Defence informed the committee that the Kinnaird, Mortimer and
Pappas recommendations continue to be implemented resulting in 'increased
rigour and reduced slippage rates'. Defence noted further that 'implementation
and maturation of an early indicators and warning system will improve Defence's
and government's ability to react to failing projects'.[62]
6.38
In response to Mortimer's recommendations regarding a Joint Industry
Training Task Force (JTTF), Defence held that a number of recommendations regarding
the JTTF have been incorporated into the ISPE proposal. Further, it is now
intended that Defence and the Industry Skills Taskforce will replace the JTTS
and provide advice and analysis to ensure a critical mass of skills relevant to
the Defence sector and future sustainment of these skills. In addition, the new
taskforce will identify and grow the skills to deliver and sustain the
capability and equipment of the ADF as detailed in the 2009 DWP, CDG and
Priority Industry Capabilities.[63]
6.39
The committee recognises the skills shortage across Defence and industry
as a key challenge in the capability development and acquisition process.
Indeed, the committee intends to consider the skills question both in terms of
industry skills including technical and engineering skills as well as the
Defence skill set and the challenges, implications and consequences across the
acquisition process in detail in a latter report.
6.40
Another key area of concern in relation to DMO and industry raised in
evidence is that of the nature of the working relationship. In this regard,
Defence industry stakeholders held that the relationship between DMO and
industry was often not harmonious or productive and that this leads to project
failures.[64]
Moreover, the question was raised as to why the Industry Division sits within
DMO, when it 'belongs at the highest strategic level underneath the secretary
and the CDF' in order to look at how Defence interacts with all of industry and
'not just those related to major systems'.[65]
These questions will be pursued by the committee.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page