Fourth memorandum from the Ministry of
Defence
POST MAIN GATE PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
Maritime Composite Training System Phase 1
Integrated Project Team Responsible: Maritime Training
Systems (MTS)
Single Point of Accountability for project capability:
Director Equipment Capability (AWE)—Above Water Effects
Senior Responsible Owner for broader capability:
SECTION 1: ABOUT
THE PROJECT
1a Project description, progress and key future
events
The Maritime Composite Training System (MCTS)
is an incremental programme enabling a coherent approach to future
warfare operator training. Phase 1 delivers the shore training
capability and provides a central warfare hub to facilitate training
through a common synthetic environment. The closure of the Maritime
Warfare School (MWS) Southwick Park site (formerly within HMS
DRYAD) and the planned transfer of all surface flotilla warfare
training to the MWS at HMS COLLINGWOOD has provided an opportunity
to combine coherency with innovation in the provision of training
facilities for new and legacy platforms.
The procurement strategy was open competition
for a Prime contract which was awarded to BAE Systems Insyte.
Flagship Training Limited was a nominated sub-contractor due to
their existing partnering arrangement with the Naval Training
and Recruitment Agency (NRTA).
At 31 March 2006 the project is 3½ months
into a 43 month contract for Demonstration and Manufacture (noting
that the initial In-Service phase is also under the same contract).
The key future milestones are the:
— Critical Design Review (CDR),
current forecast for January 2007;
— Ready For Training Date (RFTD)
current forecast for July 2008;
— Initial Operating Capability
(IOC) current forecast for July 2009; and
— Full Operating Capability (FOC)
current forecast for October 2010.
A key strength of MCTS is it brings together
a number of projects[1]
that have Maritime training requirements into a single coherent
programme which has enabled requirement synergy to be exploited
and capability to be met in a more cost effective manner.
Initial work required in support of Earned Value
Management (EVM), a key element of project monitoring and control,
identified issues regarding the extent of risk within the programme
plan. The IPT is in close dialogue with the BAE Management Team
to understand the potential impact to the overall programme and
the most appropriate action should it be required.
1b Associated projects
| Critical to Achievement of ISD
| Critical to Initial Gate Requirement
|
| Project Title | Forecast ISD
| Project Title | Forecast ISD
|
| — | — | —
| — |
1c Procurement strategy
|
| | |
| Contractor(s) | Contract Scope
| Contract Type | Procurement Route
|
| BAE Systems Insyte Broadoak | Demonstration to Manufacture
| Firm price | International competition
|
| | |
|
SECTION 2: PROJECT
COSTS
2a Performance against approved cost
| £ millions (outturn prices) |
Procurement Cost |
| Current forecast cost | 77
|
| Approved cost at Main Gate | 79
|
| Variation | -2
|
| In-year changes | 0
|
2b Reasons for variation from approved cost
| |
| Date | Variation (£m)
| Factor | Explanation
|
| 1 August 2005 | -2 | Risk Differential
| Difference between the risk allowed for in the most likely (50%) and highest acceptable estimates at Main Gate.
|
| Net Variation | -2 |
| |
2c Expenditure to date
|
| | |
| Expenditure to (£m) | 11
|
2d Years of peak procurement expenditure
| |
| 2006-07 | 2007-08
|
2e Unit production cost
| |
Note: not applicable to MCTS as it is a single system.
| Unit Production Cost (£m)
| Quantities Required |
| at Main Gate | Current
| at Main Gate | Current
|
| — | — | —
| — |
| |
| |
SECTION 3: PROJECT
TIMESCALE
3a Definition of in-service date
ISD Definition: | Initial Operating Capability—IOC will be declared by FLEET when all aspects of the throughput have been achieved for each role trained at the Individual Career, Warfare Team (Sub Team, Command Direction Team and Platform Warfare Team) and Continuation level.
|
3b Performance against approved in-service date
| |
| Date
|
| Current forecast ISD | July 2009
|
| Approved ISD at Main Gate | July 2009
|
| Variation (months) | 0
|
| In-year changes | +7
|
3c Reasons for variation from approved ISD
| |
| Date | Variation (months)
| Factor | Explanation
|
| 16 December 2005 | 7 | Contracting Process
| Protracted negotiations and extended acceptance process.
|
| 1 August 2005 | -7 | Risk Differential
| Difference between the risk allowed for in the most likely (50%) and the approved figures at Main Gate.
|
| Net Variation | 0 |
| |
3d Cost resulting from ISD variation
| | | |
| Type of Cost/Saving | Cost £m
| Saving £m | Explanation
|
| — | — | —
| — |
3e Operational impact of ISD variation
| | | |
| — | |
| |
| | |
|
SECTION 4: KEY
USER REQUIREMENTS
4a Performance against approved key user requirements
| KUR Name | Key Requirement
| Forecast to be met
| At Risk
| Not to be met
|
| KUR 1 | The User requires MCTS to enable the Operational Capability (OC) of the surface Fleet to be maintained through the training of individuals at different levels and standards of professional experience and expertise.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 2 | The User requires MCTS to enable the training of surface flotilla warfare operators of all ranks/rates to a level of individual competency defined by the relevant OPS.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 3 | The User requires MCTS to enable an individual to be trained, both independently and within their platform teams, to maintain and improve upon the level of competency defined by the relevant OPS onboard their platforms.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 4 | The User requires the throughput of personnel trained to be that required to sustain the requirement of NRTA's Warfare training plans.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 5 | The User requires the training of individuals within their platform warfare teams to be that required to maintain Readiness.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 6 | The User requires MCTS to output trained personnel to the front line within current training pipeline lengths as defined by the warfare TPAG.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 7 | The User requires that MCTS shall be available to meet the training throughput profiles.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 8 | The User requires MCTS to provide a suitably representative training context for delivery of the warfare operator training requirements.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 9 | The User requires MCTS to support the management and control of warfare operator training.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 10 | The User requires MCTS to support the brief and debrief of warfare operator training.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 11 | The User requires MCTS to integrate with Initial (Phase 1) Training.
| Yes |
| |
| KUR 12 | The User requires MCTS to be fully interoperable with other platform warfare team, Joint and Combined training capabilities.
| Yes |
| |
| Percentage currently forecast to be met
| | 100%
| |
| In-year change |
| 0 | |
| 4b Reasons for variation against approved key requirements
| | |
| |
| Date | Key Requirement
| Factor | Explanation
|
| — | —
| — | —
|
| |
| |
SECTION 5: HISTORY
UP TO
MAIN GATE
APPROVAL
5a Description of the Assessment Phase
Initial Gate Approval was given 25 February 2004. The assessment
phase for MCTS focussed on the expansion of the User Requirement
Documentation (URD) and production of the System Requirement Documentation
(SRD). The approach taken sought to achieve early engagement with
Industry by inviting prospective Prime Contractors, for the Demonstration,
Manufacture and In Service phases, to take part in a "Rainbow
team" to work alongside the MoD Integrated Project Team and
the Royal Navy Customer 1 and 2 community. Industry participation
was formally invited through the contracts bulletin and was subject
to Industry participating at their own cost; in return they would
gain early insight and understanding of the requirement, be involved
in shaping the programme and be invited to tender for the D, M
& initial In Service Phase. Six companies agreed; Alenia Marconi
Systems (AMS) (now BAE Systems Insyte), CAE, Electronic Data System
(EDS), Lockheed Martin, Serco, and Thales.
The output from the assessment phase was an agreed SRD and
a robust and well understood suite of commercial and project requirements
to support the Invitation To Tender (ITT). The ITT was issued
to the six companies late in 2004 and AMS and Lockheed Martin
responded with tenders. BAE Insyte [formerly AMS] was announced
as the preferred bidder and the contract was signed on the 16
December 2005.
5b Cost of the Assessment Phase
| £m (outturn prices) |
Assessment Phase cost
| Proportion of total estimated procurement expenditure
|
| Actual cost | 1
| 1% |
| Approved cost at Initial Gate |
4 | 5%
|
| Variation | -3
| |
| 5c Duration of Assessment Phase
| | |
| Date of Main Gate Approval | August 2005
|
| Target date for Main Gate approval at Initial Gate
| December 2005 |
| Variation (months) | -4
|
5d Cost boundaries at Initial Gate and Main Gate Approvals
| |
| £m (outturn prices) |
Lowest
| Budgeted For |
Highest
|
| Cost of Demonstration and Manufacture Phase forecast at Main Gate
| 73 | 77
| 79 |
| Cost of Demonstration and Manufacture Phase forecast at Initial Gate
| 65 | 73
| 92 |
5e ISD boundaries at Initial Gate and Main Gate Approvals
| | |
|
| Earliest
| Budgeted For | Latest Acceptable
|
| Forecast ISD at Main Gate | September 2008
| December 2008 | July 2009
|
| Forecast ISD at Initial Gate | —
| December 2007 | —
|
March 2006
|
| | |
1
Sonar 2087 (the new Anti Submarine Sonar for Type 23 Frigates),
WARSPITE (the move from MWS Southwick Park to HMS Collingwood),
Type (the new Anti Air Warfare Destroyer), UAT Capability Upgrade
(Electronic Surveillance Measure system), Sea Wolf Mid Life Upgrade
and Link 16 (Radio Tactical Data Link system). Back
| 
