Download a copy of the Defence Capability Plan 2009 (published July 2009) in Adobe PDF format.
DCP 2009 contains equipment acquisition proposals planned for Government consideration (first or second pass approval) in the next four years, covering a range of Defence capabilities, including Land Forces, Air Forces, Maritime Forces (both surface and sub-surface), Strike and Network Centric Warfare. It does not include details on approved projects. Information on approved capital investment proposals can be found in the ‘Projects’ section of the Defence Materiel Organisation website at www.defence.gov.au/dmo.
DCP 2009 contains project specific information in the following subsets:
Further information on the content of some of these sections is provided below.
The proposals are listed in alphanumeric order (i.e. AIR, DEF, JP, LAND and SEA proposals in number order). Indexes are also provided - these categorise proposals by Year-of-Decision and ACAT. Summary tables provide consolidated information on Australian Industry Opportunities and Points of Contact.
This is a major focus of the DCP and reflects the potential opportunities for Australian industry to participate in acquisition or through-life support activities. The Government expects Defence to ensure best value for money in Defence spending, based on open and effective competition. The Government has also stated that, consistent with the principles of value for money and the need to consider off-the-shelf solutions, its policy is to ensure that as much of the Defence budget is spent in Australia as is practical. Finally the Government seeks to improve our Defence self‑reliance through maintaining a focus on the local provision of a broad set of strategic industry capabilities. Through the application of the Australian Industry Capability (AIC) program Defence seeks to ensure that Australian defence industry is given the opportunity to be part of all contracts over $50 million, or where the contract involves a designated strategic industry capability. In such contracts, the RFT will include industry requirements, and tender responses will be expected to include an AIC Plan. Through this system, Defence seeks to maximise Australian industry participation in the acquisition and sustainment of ADF capability and to achieve the required strategic industry capability outcomes where this represents value for money.
These sections are intended to provide information that will support industry’s strategic planning. A key element of that strategic planning will be to identify opportunities for participation, and to that end, where possible, the currently planned acquisition and sustainment concept has been described.
This section contains information on the industry capability opportunities associated with each project. This is presented in a series of matrices that outline areas of industrial capability where it is anticipated that Australian industry could participate, together with corresponding activities expected for each industrial capability. To provide additional granularity, the tables provide an indication of the likely criticality of local industry activity to the ADF:
These indicators do not imply that all the designated industry capability must be in Australia, but only that some level of local capacity is likely as part of project acquisition and / or ADF sustainment needs.
The industry activities listed in the matrix are those that are used in the Defence + Industry ePortal1
(www.dplusi.defence.gov.au). The industry capabilities identified in these matrices are those that have been highlighted in the White Paper as being the broad range of strategic industry capabilities that the Government will monitor. The tables may also contain additional project specific industry capability entries. Below is a further explanation of the major capabilities contained in the matrices:
In accordance with the recommendations of the Defence Procurement and Sustainment Review 2008 (the Mortimer review), the Estimated Phase Expenditure bands of previous DCPs have been replaced by the Acquisition Category (ACAT) scores for the projects. The Defence Materiel Organisation has been using the ACAT framework since 2004, as it provides a consistent methodology for categorising projects. The ACAT framework operates in conjunction with the Project Manager Certification Framework to align the complexity of projects with the experience and competencies of project managers.
The ACAT framework is based on four Acquisition Categories that provide a graduated scale from the most demanding and complex projects to those that are less so. The largest, most demanding and complex projects are categorised as ACAT I and ACAT II, and the less demanding projects are categorised ACAT III and ACAT IV. The specific description of each level is as follows:
The ACAT level of a project will provide industry with a more robust description of the scale, complexity and risks in the project. It should be noted that over the life of a project the ACAT score is continuously reviewed, especially as it passes through decision or milestone gates (such as first pass approval, critical design reviews, etc) and as the complexity or risk reduces, the ACAT score is expected to change.
The ACAT score consists of six attributes. Table 1 is the matrix which project staff use to assess the complexity levels of each attribute. This table will be useful to reference when consulting the ACAT score for each project. The attributes are scored and a calculator provides a weighted rating for the project. The attributes are:
|Attribute Complexity Level||4 (Low)||3 (Moderate)||2 (High)||1 (Very High)|
|Acquisition Cost (Note 1)||<$100m||$100m–$500m||$500m–$1,500m||>$1,500m|
|Project Management Complexity||Relies predominantly on traditional project management knowledge||Relies predominantly on traditional project management knowledge||Significant||Extensive|
Routine schedule management issues
Requires the application of routine project monitoring and control measures
Difficult schedule management matters expected to arise from time to time
Requires the application of difficult remedial schedule management measures
Complex schedule management issues with competing priorities and persistent pressure on delivery date(s)
Requires the application of innovative schedule management initiatives
Extremely complex schedule management issues with competing/ conflicting priorities and persistent high-level pressure on delivery date(s)
Requires the application of innovative schedule management initiatives and frequent high-level management intervention
Low system complexity
Limited hardware and/or critical software development
Limited amount of systems integration
Moderate system complexity
Moderate level of hardware and/or software development
Moderate systems integration
High system complexity
High level of hardware and/or software development
High systems integration
Very high system complexity
Very high level of hardware and/or software development
Very high systems integration
|Operation and Support||
Very similar system/ equipment exists in ADF
No new operation and support infrastructure changes needed
Sustainment can fit in an existing SPO
Similar system/ equipment exists in ADF
Some operation and support infrastructure changes needed
Sustainment can fit in an existing SPO with minimal change
Some systems/ equipment do not exist in ADF
Major operation and support infrastructure changes needed
Sustainment may require moderate changes to an existing SPO
Most major systems/ equipment do not exist in ADF
Significant operation and support infrastructure changes needed
Sustainment could require a new SPO to be put in place or major changes to existing SPO(s)
Existing companies have supplied almost identical systems
Contracting arrangements and contracts are complex but contract management is routine
Companies have previously demonstrated capability to develop and produce systems
Contracting arrangements and contracts are complex and require a high level of contract management
Individual company capabilities exist but not previously combined to produce required capability
Project will challenge extant industry capabilities
Contracting arrangements are complex or there is high level of interdependency between a number of commercial arrangements being managed by the DMO
New industry capabilities may need to be introduced
Project is at the margins of extant industry capability maturity levels
Contracting arrangements are highly complex and there is very high level of interdependency between a number of commercial arrangements being managed by the DMO
Novel commercial practices required to undertake the project
SEA 1351 Ph 1, Replacement East Coast Tugs
JP 129 Ph 4, Tier 1 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
AIR 9000 Ph 5C, Additional Heavy Lift Helicopter
JP 157 Ph 1, Replacement Refuelling Trucks
SEA 1439 Ph 6, Collins Sonar Replacement
LAND 75 Ph 4, Battlefield Command Support System
SEA 1000 Program, New Submarine
AIR 6000 Ph 2A/2B, New Air Combat Capability
|Note 1: Not all acquisition ACAT scores will correlate with project dollar size. E.g. a large purchase of an established capability will be rated at a lower ACAT level.|
This section provides indicative first pass approval, year-of-decision (second pass approval) and Initial Operating Capability years. These dates are indicative only. Where the first pass approval and year-of-decision dates are the same this may indicate the project is undertaking a single second pass approval. The timing of some of the projects may be adjusted for a variety of reasons including a change in priorities, modified development timescales, or a change in project intent (e.g. from upgrade to replacement). As also highlighted earlier, there is an element of over-programming built into the DCP. This over-programming is a long-standing practice designed to provide flexibility and to aid in ensuring that best use is made of available funding in the event of delays to the development of individual projects.
The schedule highlights include new attributes from previous DCPs including an indication of when the project is expected to seek first pass approval under the two-pass approval process, as this is seen as a key date for industry strategic planning. It is usual for a RFT, or some other type of industry solicitation or cost refinement activity to be undertaken post first pass approval.
Also included in this section is an indication of when the Initial Operating Capability is required. This replaces the previous ‘In-service Delivery’ dates which indicated when the first major items of the system were to be delivered, to a measure that highlights when the first elements of the new system need to be operationally ready. This puts the planning and delivery focus on all elements of the system, including training and support, not just on the delivery of the equipment.
The position and phone number of the points of contact are provided should additional information on specific proposals be required. The points of contact are from the Capability Staff and, where applicable, the Defence Materiel Organisation - or in some instances the Chief Information Officer Group. Project websites are also provided where applicable. Project information should in the first instance be sought from the Capability Staff contact or Chief Information Officer Group contact where they are the sponsor of the project.
1.The Defence + Industry ePortal provides improved opportunities for companies and Small to Medium Enterprises to join in defence acquisition and sustainment programs.