Major SPIDERS Update, Advancing Energy Security & Barbarians at the Gate

This mega post just in from Mr. Harold Sanborn, Program Manager at Construction Engineering Research Lab (CERL), US Army and technical manager for the SPIDERS Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD).  It's chock full of good news and you'll want to read it top-to-bottom to get the full picture. ab

Starting from the vantage point (30 years of civil service) that "no good idea goes unpunished" allows me the freedom to work complex problems knowing that the threat of doom comes with the territory. Being twisted and enjoying pain keeps me in the zone.

SPIDERS Phase I has finished the "history tour" as we codify and publish the lessons learned. First lesson, see sentence one... Acquisition of both Military Construction and Research and Development on the same contract at a firm fixed price (not a cost plus AFRL contract) isn't done every day. The Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) guidance for a minimum of Technology Readiness Level 6 as a pre-condition, to accelerate the deployment of technologies, while needing to leave behind a functioning, sustainable and useful real property improvement in energy security, stretches one's mind. Arguably we accomplished what we set out to do.

Signs of the Apocalypse: Operations, Training, and ACQ on same page in AZ

I have just returned from Phoenix,  Arizona where I believe I was witness to a portend of biblical proportions, “Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria!” (Thank you, Dr. Venkman).   In an auditorium of a satellite campus of Arizona State University, I observed a Colonel of Operations, who actually knew the first name of a Colonel of Acquisition!  Those of you who understand the previously chasm between operations, training and doctrine, and the acquisition community will appreciate the implications of this sea change.  Where previously these two communities threw things over the wall to each other, it now appears that they are executing Manning –like (Eli, not Peyton) handoffs. Perhaps rapid equipping has come of age. This hastily arranged, low cost meeting, not without its warts, set the standard for energy conferences. 

The Army, Academia, and Industry gathered to conduct a series of briefings on processes and technologies.  The doyenne of operational energy, Sharon Burke, opened the conference entitled, “Net Zero at the Tactical Edge”.  Despite being harangued for not getting her Operational Energy implementation plan out in a timely manner and for failing to get the new SecDef to include energy in his priorities, she set a positive tone for the conference.  Anybody who can reference Jane Austen and Carl von Clausewitz in the same sentence gets a little latitude.  In her defense, the relatively new SecDef may not get it ... yet. 

The hand on the tiller for this ship was the director of the Rapid Equipping Force, Colonel Pete Newell.  I interviewed Newell previously about the role of the REF in operational energy.   Newell looks and sounds like a warfighter and he understands the complexity of the Requirements and Acquisition processes.  His take is that OE is nothing special, just another challenge commanders face on the battlefield and that it is his organization’s mission:  to find the technology solutions.  What is different is his recognition of the need to bring together the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Program Managers so that requirements can be expedited and the PMs can satisfy those requirements. This is the path to long term, secure OE.   

The team is together, but TRADOC has yet to produce the Capability Development Document necessary for the PMs to begin their acquisition process.   This is still on the shoulders of the Army Capabilities Integration Center (sorry to classmate, Keith), Combat Arms Support Command (CASCOM) and TRADOC Capabilities Manager, Soldier.  These organizations are responsible for describing the requirements for operational energy from the individual soldier to the Forward Operating Base level. 

The speakers' materials were superb, although they all prepared PC PowerPoint briefings that were butchered by the Macintosh computer used to display them.   The information they provided on the four different venues and four different processes for bringing technologies into the Army’s experimentation effort was a bit mind numbing.   I challenged COL Newell on this, and, in a surprisingly glass half full way, he pointed out that they should be thought of as four paths to success.  The REF’s Bill Garland promised to publish a simple document helping industry understand what path would suit them best.  Will let you know when and where that is available.

The best aspect of the conference was the fifteen minute meetings that industry could schedule with program managers and the REF.  The chance to sit down one on one and present technologies and receive advice in a small, dare I say, intimate setting was unparalleled.   More on this, the pathways, and advice to conference hosts in the next post.  Dan Nolan

From the Ashes to the Edge: Army OE Capability Resurrected

In a previous post, I lamented the lack of an execution arm for operational energy for everyone but the Marines who have the Expeditionary Energy Office. In 2006 -2008, the Army had the Power Surety Task Force (PSTF), embedded in the Rapid Equipping Force (REF) that served that function. The REF finds technology solutions to commanders’ immediate battlefield needs and brought the Joint Force robots, visible laser designators, anti-sniper technologies and enhanced armor.

The adventure in operational energy that was the PSTF brought about, HiPower, tactical garbage to energy, the Net Zero Plus Joint Technology Demonstration and the Net Zero Forward Operating Base at the National Training Center. Unfortunately, it was a bit avant garde for the timorous REF Director at that time and he had it transferred to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (DDRE). DDRE was also running the Energy Security Task Force, the ad hoc predecessor to the Office of Operational Energy Plans and Policy (OOEPP). When OOEPP got up and running, they inherited the PSTF, but decided that their office would just do plans and policy and not do execution. The PSTF was allowed to die a proper contractual death. But the Phoneix arises!

Yesterday, at storied Fort Belvoir, VA the REF announced that “The U.S. Army's Rapid Equipping Force has partnered with the Defense Technical Information Center's (DTIC) Weapon Systems Technology Information Analysis Center (WSTIAC) to procure, deploy and assess hybrid alternative and renewable energy systems in an effort called "Energy to the Edge". Selected renewable and alternative energy solutions include Solar Stick 360 3kW hybrid energy system, ZeroBase H-Series 5kW Regenerator, Skybuilt's Skycase portable power system, Iris Technologies Personal Power System (SPACES) and Qinetiq's 1kW JP-8 generator.” As soon as the REF posts a link to the release, will get it to you.

How this will be accomplished is unclear. Whether a sub-organization will be reconstituted or this will simply be added to the plates of folks already there, is not known. What is known is that their number one customer, U.S. Forces - Afghanistan, is straining at the bit for this capability. Before he departed, GEN Petraeus submitted a memo to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics listing four operational energy requirements. GEN Mattis, Commander, U.S. Central Command endorsed the request and added one of his own. CENTCOM wants a team of energy experts from the Services and Industry to visit Afghanistan to conduct "a baseline study to reduce fuel consumption at our forward operating bases". Having done a couple of these, I recommend that CENTCOM send a General Officer to lead this team and ensure they get access to the information often closely guarded by support contractors.

The REF is the un-acquisition outfit that gets it done. It is the perfect place to put the requirement. I caution the leadership to gird their loins against the folks that will tell them it is not their job. The REF mission is to, “rapidly provides urgent capabilities to U.S. Army forces employed globally by harnessing current and emerging technologies in order to improve operational effectiveness”. Operational energy is just such an “urgent capability”. Dan Nolan, PSTF 2006-2008

Straight DOEPP on Bad Gas: Burke on Hi GHG Fuel

In a recent post on the White House blog (thanks, J.B.) the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (AS DOEPP), Sharon Burke brought our attention to a rapid development program sponsored by the Army’s Tank and Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Command in Warren, MI (TARDEC). The program, called the Fuel Efficiency Demonstrator-Alpha (FED-Alpha), produced a prototype vehicle that “has all the capability of an up-armored M1114 Humvee, but with modifications that can improve fuel economy by 70%”. I attended the industry day in September 2008 and in less than three years, the first prototype is unveiled. In the world of Acquisition, this is lightning speed. I hope that this process can be streamlined, is replicable and changes how we think about our current archaic process. But this is not the big new.

Ms. Burke goes on in the post to discuss a current move afoot in Congress to repeal the provisions of Sec 526. Essentially, Sec 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 says DOD can use no fuel whose production has greater carbon intensity than standard petroleum processing. Congress is considering language to repeal that provision. The ASDOEPP draws the connection between increases in greenhouse gases (GHG), climate change and security. Where previously DOD has planned for the implication of climate change, they have not directly attributed it to anthropogenic causes. In many cases they have avoided the discussion, in the words of one Navy official, “we don't want to get into a tail chase over climate change…”.

In a time when Congress’ efforts could be better spent, having an Administration official set the record straight is important and appropriate. The ideology behind the attempt to repeal Sec 526 is about denial of the causes of climate change, not about greater military flexibility. It was good to see Ms. Burke strip the camouflage from this waste of time. Dan Nolan

DOD/Army Leadership Steps out on Operational Energy: The Lab Is Open

Since the demise of the Power Surety Task Force, the Army has not had an agency focused on evaluating and deploying operational energy technology. Deficiency resolved, apparently.

This past week, Sharon Burke, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Operational Energy Plans and Programs and Katherine Hammack, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment oversaw the opening of the Army’s new Base Camp Systems Integration Lab (SIL) at Fort Devens, MA.

The SIL is under the direction of the Program Executive Office for Combat Support and Combat Service Support. It is composed of two, 150 person base camps, one configured for current capabilities and one to assess new technologies.

“Instrumentation on the SIL will measure water, fuel and power usage to help increase energy efficiency and base camp commonality.” The decision for the 150 person size is related to the “Force Provider” base camp in a box. Actually, it fits nicely in a single C-17, not a box.

This is a great way to get at the operational needs surrounding energy. The two sites will allow the evaluation of off the shelf technologies AND the development of next generation tech. The Force Provider is intend to be emplaced rapidly (four hours), support 150 people indefinitely and then go back into the box for use elsewhere. If the SIL focuses on just Force Provider requirements, it will miss the huge energy sinks that are the follow-ons to the expeditionary life support provided by FP, the more enduring Forward Operating Bases. We hope the lessons from the SIL will inform the contracting process that supports these Forward Operating Bases. I am sure they thought of that, but if it has not come up, here is another tidbit from NPR that helps crystallize the challenge. Dan Nolan

Bashing the Square on Energy: Learning the Drill

Only those who have served with or in the British Army might pick up the reference, but Dina Fine Maron's piece in the NYT describes the challenges faced in deploying new energy technologies outside the traditional acquisition and R&D systems. If you don't know the drill, you can't execute the facing movements required. Although quoted therein, my judgement remains objective! Read on. Dan Nolan

Photo Courtesy of BBC

Strangled in the Crib: Good Ideas in Operational Energy

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy was recently at Harvard explaining what the military is doing to reduce energy use in theater. She told them about the egregious weight in batteries the troops are hauling on patrols, about 4 MPH vehicles and about the only program that has had a significant effect in cutting the use of energy for heating and cooling structures in the AOR. And then she told the audience that that one good idea had been abandoned because there was problem with the material (which is in use in millions of buildings in the U.S., interior and exterior), that there was a problem disposing of it (we landfill it in this country) and that the tents couldn’t be moved. The latter is a true statement, but the tents it was to be used on where not moving! Instead they were replaced every 2 or 3 years at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a piece.

I am a bit exercise about this because I was part of the team that put the concept together at the Army's Rapid Equipping Force. We even wrote a user manual that contained the clearance from the Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM) and the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC). There is a memo dated 5 Aug 2010 from the ASA, Installations and Environment with amplifying instructions on safety decisions. The Air Force issued a memo in April 2010 recommending the use. Finally an Engineering and Construction bulletin was published in May 2010 by the Army Corps of Engineers further amplifying the use instructions for the material. I found out that the use of the foam had been suspended in Afghanistan last summer, but could get no official response when I asked why. I ensured that Ms. Burke’s office had all this information, but never received a response. I suppose it could have gone in someone’s junk mail file……….

BG (R) Steve Anderson knows this works. GEN Petraus’ logistician in Iraq, Anderson knows the true cost of fuel in blood and dollars and what this elegantly simple solution provides. He has been on the ground and seen the results. He has tried to tell the story, but no one is listening. John Spiller, formerly of the now defunct Power Surety Task Force (another good idea killed), can tell the story. He wrote the book on foam, literally. The foam haters out there are the Chihuahuas who have treed the bureaucrats who in turn have turned away from the one system that worked. Yes, the tents can’t be moved. Yes, extra precautions must be taken to provide for exits. Yes, it will burn, but it will not flash over to other tents! Right now we are building plywood buildings in Afghanistan. I have seen them being built. I didn’t see a lot of trees while I was there. Wonder what the fully burdened cost of plywood would be? And I have frozen my butt off in plywood buildings from Kosovo to Afghanistan; they are not known for their energy efficient properties.

The picture shows me, standing in front of a tent that was done improperly. It was not coated, it was not dug in and it was not properly vented. This is what has gotten contracting officers worked up. But it is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Had the contractor been held accountable by the COTR this would not have happened. John Spiller could have trained them. Joe Amadee could have. I’ve got their numbers if anyone in the office of the Operational Energy would like to speak with them. With All Due Respect, Dan Nolan

QDR 2010 Directly Addresses DOD's Operational and Facilities Energy Issues

I admit it: back in June of 2009 I had my doubts. But the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is finally out, and energy got its due - approximately one page out of one hundred twenty eight. Not bad, when you consider previous QDRs never considered the topic. Starting on page 84 of the report, I've captured and reprinted the 4 energy specific paragraphs here and will break it down, with the points I consider most important / helpful highlighted in yellow.

First, I like that they take a stab at defining energy security, and when they do it's kept short and sweet:

Energy security for the Department means having assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.

There's a lot they leave out that others try to cram in. I say: good job. Re: the definition - just want to make sure we don't spend so much time and energy on the protect and deliver parts that we significantly impair our ability to prosecute war ... or whatever else it is our troops are told to accomplish. The QDR addresses that concern in the next sentence:

Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions.

... and points out additional benefits to fielding a leaner, meaner force. So how's this goodness going to come about? By baking better energy thinking in right up front the way it's already been told to do by congress, and the way two Defense Science Boards and the GAO have already recommended:

DoD must incorporate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and acquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel set forth in the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act.

Who's going to make this happen? Why the DOD Energy Boss, of course. The QDR language makes it sound like a fait accompli:

The Department will also investigate alternative concepts for improving operational energy use, including the creation of an innovation fund administered by the new Director of Operational Energy to enable components to compete for funding on projects that advance integrated energy solutions.

Sounds good, but I've got the feeling they're being a little too optimistic on this one. See here.

I like everything in this next two paragraphs, but I'm going to let them ride without comment and just a few highlights:

The Department is increasing its use of renewable energy supplies and reducing energy demand to improve operational effectiveness, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in support of U.S. climate change initiatives, and protect the Department from energy price fluctuations. The Military Departments have invested in noncarbon power sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass energy at domestic installations and in vehicles powered by alternative fuels, including hybrid power, electricity, hydrogen, and compressed national gas. Solving military challenges—through such innovations as more efficient generators, better batteries, lighter materials, and tactically deployed energy sources—has the potential to yield spin-off technologies that benefit the civilian community as well. DoD will partner with academia, other U.S. agencies, and international partners to research, develop, test, and evaluate new sustainable energy technologies.

Indeed, the following examples demonstrate the broad range of Service energy innovations. By 2016, the Air Force will be postured to cost-competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel via an alternative fuel blend that is greener than conventional petroleum fuel. Further, Air Force testing and standard-setting in this arena paves the way for the much larger commercial aviation sector to follow. The Army is in the midst of a significant transformation of its fleet of 70,000 non-tactical vehicles (NTVs), including the current deployment of more than 500 hybrids and the acquisition of 4,000 low-speed electric vehicles at domestic installations to help cut fossil fuel usage. The Army is also exploring ways to exploit the opportunities for renewable power generation to support operational needs: for instance, the Rucksack Enhanced Portable Power System (REPPS). The Navy commissioned the USS Makin Island, its first electric-drive surface combatant, and tested an F/A-18 engine on camelina-based biofuel in 2009—two key steps toward the vision of deploying a “green” carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016. The Marine Corps has created an Expeditionary Energy Office to address operational energy risk, and its Energy Assessment Team has identified ways to achieve efficiencies in today’s highly energy-intensive operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to reduce logistics and related force protection requirements.

Finally, the last paragraph brings it all home with the intent to address the brittle grid problem.

To address energy security while simultaneously enhancing mission assurance at domestic facilities, the Department is focusing on making them more resilient. U.S. forces at home and abroad rely on support from installations in the United States. DoD will conduct a coordinated energy assessment, prioritize critical assets, and promote investments in energy efficiency to ensure that critical installations are adequately prepared for prolonged outages caused by natural disasters, accidents, or attacks. At the same time, the Department will also take steps to balance energy production and transmission with the requirement to preserve the test and training ranges and the operating areas that are needed to maintain readiness.

They covered all the bases (no pun intended) as far as I'm concerned. There's another two-hundred or more pages of detail I would have like to have seen included on energy, but if they had, given all the other challenges facing the department at this time, it wouldn't be a QDR.

I'll pursue the usual path from this point on: reminding the Department that this is what it's told itself it needs to do on energy matters, and nudging it to move faster when it looks like other challenges, or more likely, mind-numbing bureaucratic inertia, tribal squabbling and/or status quo thinking get in the way of desperately needed progress.

Photo Credit: abnskyshark / Andrew Michael Smith @ Flickr

Army Moves Out Strong in 2009 on Energy Policy

What makes this news stand out? Well for one thing, it's not about facilities; it's about weapon systems. Army Acquisition Exec Dean Popps just signed an important a new Army energy document ... a memo with a distribution list, as you'll see, that includes every Army senior in every significant org (at least I think so). And it's not just the address list, it's what it says that's amazing:

All new Army acquisition programs, to include new program starts and new increments, with end items that consume energy shall include the fully burdened cost of energy needed to operate the system in their total ownership cost analysis. This direction applies to all acquisition category level programs, including information systems.

Excellent. And to keep this post from going too long, I'll single out one more gem though there are many more. An objective listed under the heading "Energy Productivity" states:

Our goal is to reduce the risks associated with energy supply and demand while maintaining needed operational capabilities.

Not surprisingly, the Army is proud of what it is accomplishing and shows a lot of its work here. You can say what you want about how long it's taking energy strategy to be implemented in DOD, but this document, released to kick off the new year, has me very excited about what to expect next from the Army. OSD, USAF, USN ... you paying attention ?!?

Energy Changes Coming to DOD ...

... finally. In 2001, the Defense Science Board (DSB) published the excellent "More Capable Warfighting through Reduced Fuel Burden: Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms." When almost nothing happened, the DSB reconstituted itself (it's instructive to note that IDA consultant Tom Morehouse was a key member on both teams) and in Feb 2008 cranked out the ultimate guide to DOD Energy issues: "More Fight, Less Fuel: Report on DOD Energy Strategy." (Both of these voluminous and detailed docs are available in the right sidebar on this site.)

As we approach the one year annivesary of the second report, thought you might like to see what is, IMHO, the most singularly powerful statement it makes. Summarizing the key findings of the 2001 report, which have remained true all along, it says: 

The key finding was that warfighting, logistics and monetary benefits occur when weapons systems are made more fuel-efficient, but those benefits are not valued or emphasized in the requirements and acquisition processes. This is because DoD’s business processes do not explicitly, routinely or systematically consider either the energy problem or opportunities to address it. The [2001] report found that the requirements process does not require energy efficiency in deployed systems, the acquisition process does not value it, the procurement process does not recognize it, and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES) process does not provide it visibility when considering investment decisions.

Ouch, that hurts. But there's good reason to believe 2009 is finally going to usher in some big changes. In fact, you'll see some of them very soon. Stay tuned.

Troubling Tanker Talk

I learned one thing doing source selections at Hanscom AFB in the 1980's in an environment where every award was protested: don't change the rules mid-course. A recent article from  Aerospace Daily & Defense Report comments on the position of Pentagon acquisition chief John Young on the ongoing tanker replacement saga:

Lifecycle cost would be too thorny because of fluctuations in areas outside the Pentagon's control. For example, the price of oil recently dropped, dramatically reducing the lifecycle cost of both aircraft. However, fuel efficiency of the two bids were different, and given the challenge of projecting such costs in the future, Young says the simplest way of conducting a price competition is to focus solely on the up-front price associated with developing and buying the first aircraft.

I wanted to make the case that this procurement, more than any other, should take into account the DOD's own new policy on including the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) in its lifecycle and logistic projections for new systems. But adding that on here mid-course would just be adding to the folly. USAF either needs to award this contract based on the criteria it published when it released the RFP, or it needs to kill this acquisition and start fresh. I'd go with the latter of course.

And this time put fuel efficiency at the top of the requirements list. It's disturbing that leadership is so easily swayed by day-to-day fluctuations in the price of energy, when the overall price trends are clearly pointing up, and at risk of spiking on a moment's notice. Haven't we learned anything from the recent several years of energy-induced budget shock? It's not just the high price, it's the volatility that's beating up DOD budgeting and procurement. See posts here, here, here and here.

KC-135 Photo (from inside F-15) courtsy of USAF & James Gordon

DOD Gets Real with the True Cost of Fuel in 2009

I just got a heads-up from a new friend at the DC Energy Consensus regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009.  You can read this for yourself in: Section 2925, DOD energy management, SEC. 332. CONSIDERATION OF FUEL LOGISTICS SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS IN PLANNING, REQUIREMENTS DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION PROCESSES.

But here's the take away: a few days ago President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and this time it included something new and special from a DOD Energy point of view: it included language to force program managers and other leaders to consider the true costs of fuel in all new procurements.  Although you may not believe it, they have never done this before. 

The term of art is the fully-burdened cost of fuel, or FBCF, and it is to become a programmatic Key Performance Parameter (KPP) from this point forward. Actually, you're probably better off going here first: see Chris DiPetto, DUSD Acquisition & Technology, recent Powerpoint on "DOD Energy Demand" and the Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel (FBCF). I liked and took a couple of DiPetto's statements right off the page, including:

• DoD Planning Processes Undervalue Fuel And Its Delivery Costs and DoD Business Practices and Culture Disincentivize Strategic Investment
  
• FBCF is a force planning variable
• FBCF is an input to requirements and the acquisition process
• FBCF is a denominator for metrics
• FBCF is a facilitator for portfolio analysis
• FBCF is a composite of capability and cost

There's a lot more to say on this, and I'll plan to come back to FBCF 2009 shortly.  In particular, will be looking at how comprehensively and how quickly it's really being implemented.

New Air Force Tanker Tanked

Not long ago an Air Force general stood before me on a conference stage and said something that blew my mind: "the mother of the last KC-135 pilot hasn't been born yet."  And that was before the award to Northrop/BAE, the protest of Boeing, the alleged recompete run by DOD, and today's termination of the procurement on the grounds that there isn't enough time left to get it done before the administration turns over.  Maybe today the same statement holds true except substitute "grandmother" for "mother".  

What a total clusterfxck, for the pilots, for maintenance crews, and for the AF logistics and fuel budgets. Only positive thing I can think of is that maybe the so-called Dreamliner 787, with improved, energy-saving aerodynamics and engines,  can now become the base plane from which the future tanker is derived.  3-times delayed, it has some con's to go with its pro's, as described here.

In the meantime (and it may be a long meantime), there are a few lean fueling efficiency things the Air Force can do to improve fuel utilization on its current yet paleolithic fleet of 500 or so tankers.

US Air Force photo courtesy of MSgt Marvin Krause