A congressional committee on intelligence was presented with a proposed alternative architecture for a next generation intelligence mission system under the premise that the alternative would be less expensive, provide improved performance and be quicker to transition to operations than the current program of record. As such, a request was levied for an independent comparison of the two systems to inform a way forward decision.
To complete the project, Perspecta facilitated technical collaboration sessions between mission stakeholders to reach concurrence on critical performance criteria for evaluation as well as negotiable vs. non-negotiable performance requirements. We configured a common modeling and simulation environment to perform equivalent assessments of mission performance across short and long-term mission durations. Our analysis concluded that the proposed alternative design failed to meet several minimum performance metrics and that the overall lifetime cost of the proposed constellation was higher than the program of record architecture, which enabled a best value acquisition decision based on objective technical performance assessment and government cost evaluation.