A new model for COTS collaboration

Story

October 10, 2024

Jason Shields

Curtiss-Wright

Here’s how it usually goes: Faced with the need to upgrade an older platform or design a new one, a prime contractor will select – where it makes most sense in terms of risk, cost, and time – a mix of COTS [commercial off-the-shelf] suppliers and system integrators to function as subcontractors that will develop and build the various subsystems their program demands, for example, the mission computers, displays, and data concentrators. The prime contractor, making strategic build-versus-buy decisions about what tasks to keep in-house, will focus on those that have the most value, for example the platform itself or the application layer software.

Rather than build modules or subsystems from the ground up and reinvent the wheel, the prime goes out to industry to select solutions from vendors who have already developed or can modify an existing product that meets their requirements. After, the prime must manage, say, ten different vendors and ten different subsystems, all developed in a silo. If something goes wrong, the prime has to investigate which subsystem is at fault and act like a general contractor to facilitate the investigation. More often than not, the various COTS vendors will try to make the case that the problem lies with one of the other suppliers.

One alternative to this scenario arises when a single COTS vendor offers to supply, for instance, six of the subsystems to the prime, while managing one or more other COTS vendors to supply the remaining four. The downside in this case comes from the higher costs to the prime and – ultimately – the taxpayer that result from margin-stacking. The first COTS supplier, essentially taking on the role of contractor, needs to be compensated for taking on the extra risk, burden, and responsibility of managing the other suppliers.

There’s a better, more innovative way – a new model of working with other COTS suppliers that eliminates finger-pointing when there’s a problem and eliminates higher costs driven by margin-stacking. More importantly, this approach provides the prime with a faster turnkey solution.

The breakthrough approach is to form a small consortium, or alliance, between two or more COTS suppliers, based on a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), on a program-by-program basis. The MOA defines each COTS supplier’s areas of responsibility and their intellectual property (IP). The real game-changer is that if a problem arises, the proper party identifies the issue, takes responsibility, and works together with the other parties to resolve it. No time or money is wasted in blame-passing.

Another innovation, one that provides a powerful motivation for all the parties to work collaboratively, is that IP is shared between the COTS suppliers so that supplier A uses a module developed by supplier B in their subsystem, and vice versa. Not only does this reduce NRE [non-recurring engineering] costs and speed development by leveraging existing technology, but it also fosters a long-term healthy “codependence” between the COTS suppliers that drives cooperation over the life of the program. Each of the suppliers has the incentive to maintain good relationships with the other suppliers.

This model also drives additional advantages. When COTS suppliers act together as a small consortium and understand their common interest and goal, they can design together and share resources, resulting in component, software, and test software commonality. Working in alignment, the COTS suppliers can share insights into proposal write-ups and, at the design level, the various bills of material can be compared to reduce total device count across all the various subsystems. Each party pays for their own NRE, but all benefit from lower costs.

What’s more, collaboration between suppliers can extend to Black Hat (or competitive) reviews, best practices, and testing and validation processes. Test software can be developed in collaboration so that common test stands/devices can be used across all of the various subsystems. This approach helps mitigate device obsolescence as well, because shared designs can mean a reduction in the total number of unique components. (Figure 1.)

[Figure 1 ǀ Shown: An example of a Curtiss-Wright rugged multiplatform management computer leveraging COTS technology to meet modern multifaceted mission-computing and display-processing needs.]

In terms of flexibility, this approach means that COTS suppliers can come together on a program-by-program basis, with a different mix of consortium members aligned to tackle each new program. This disruptive new model for collaboration between trusted partners, where responsibilities and unique strengths in value and experience are shared, ultimately benefits the taxpayers, providing the warfighter with the capabilities they need more quickly and less expensively.

Jason Shields is Business Capture Manager, Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions.

Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions
https://www.curtisswrightds.com/