Respond to the two student initial posts below, the replies should be directly to the individual student.

Book:http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a606328.pd… INITIAL FORUM Question: “Your
readings this week also goes on to discuss the capabilities-based
assessment (CBA) process, which is the “backbone” of JCIDS Defense
Acquisition University, 2010, p. 35). There is an excellent chart on
page 36 of your textbook that details the CBA process. The CBA is an
analytical approach utilized by the DoD to identify the needs of the
warfighter. The purpose of the process is to find out what requirements
the warfighter has. “Requirement” is just the acquisition way of
saying needs, supplies, or equipment. In a DoD contracting activity,
the “requirement” is the item or service that is being acquired.

The
ground work discussed in the lesson for this week is imperative to set
the stage for the acquisition process. Without solid research and
analysis early on, the acquisition process will go down the wrong path
and result in lost money and time.

So,
your question for this week, and some of what we discussed last week,
is “What is wrong with the requirements” analysis that goes into our
federal or defense contracts today? Bring in examples of any problems
you have experienced to help round out the discussion this week.” INSTRUCTIONS: Respond to the two student initial posts below, the replies should be directly to the individual student, a minimum of 150 words and include direct questions. Student names are included next to each corresponding post. STUDENT 1( Fraser)

It
is a fairly simple question when you think about it. But it can be
expanded and torn apart to make it more complicated. We could look at
every word and examine its meanings, but that will become a problem in
and of itself. This problem is something that lends itself to what is
wrong with the requirements analysis in the defense contracts world.
Time, it seems like a simple concept, when a time line has been
established and needs to me you would think this is the easiest part of
getting a contract done. When you begin to add different processes and
teams and multiple offices and individuals into the process it begins to
get truly get mucked up.

A simple process on
line with a fixed timeline can stay the course easily but the more
people and processes added will slow things down greatly. In todays
world we all know the longer you take to buy things we can see the
prices change. Now when it comes to electronics and small things they
may get cheaper, but when It comes to large projects like building a
destroyer or aircraft means it gets more expensive. So as the process
gets more mucked down and the timeline expands to unforeseen delays the
more expensive something may become. This is something that the
government does not want. Once a budget has been approved it shouldn’t
have to flex to meet time costs. The United States Government doesn’t
want to change its budget every few weeks to fit the ever changing
timeline. It should be one of the easiest things to control. STUDENT 2 (Stacy)

One
of the biggest issues I see with requirements analysis at the operation
level is lack of technical experts employed by the government and/or
the resistance to partner with industry leaders during the requirements
phase in order to create the best package possible.

At
my current location we recently awarded a project (small dollar…less
than $1M) for a company to come in to provide rubber removal services
and painting airfield lines. This is about a simple of a requirement as
one could get. Literally every airport in the world requires these
services at least once a year, if not more, depending on how busy they
are. However, in this case, the end users were very knew to working on
the airfield, the engineer graduated college less than 1 year ago and
the contracting officer left in the middle of the process with no
turnover with their replacement. This was a trifecta of a Charlie
Foxtrot.

The
overall lack of experience with the requirement, the PWS was generated
without reaching out to anyone in the industry to see if even made the
slighted bit of sense or was in line with commercial practices. During
the execution of the work several ambiguities were found along with
several miscalculations that has not lead to the contractor and the
government in a dispute over a Request for Equitable Adjustment in
excess of $250,000.

The
inexperience of the Government was clear from the start and ultimately
did not allow for a true requirement to be formed. Federal Times advised
that SOWs are often just cut and pasted from old documents and are
rarely checked for accuracy, which results in conflicts of the
requirement (Goodrich, 2017).

Reference:

Goodrich,
S. (2017, July 22). 6 simple fixes for the federal procurement process.
Retrieved January 10, 2018, from
https://www.federaltimes.com/opinions/2015/02/20/6…