17 septembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

Air Force aims to move startups from pitch to contract award in 24 hours

By:

WASHINGTON — A fledgling five-person software start-up has just wrapped up their pitch to what could be a key investor. The pressure has been intense, but the customer decides to bite, sliding a credit card through a Square reader to award money to the company's Paypal account.

This isn't an episode of Shark Tank, or a successful bid to get investment dollars from a Silicon Valley angel investor. The customer in this scenario is the Air Force — or at least, its acquisition executive would like it to be.

During the Air Force Association's annual conference, Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, will announce a series of “Startup Days” targeted toward involving startup companies in Air Force acquisition by rapidly awarding contracts in less than 24 hours.

“From the company's view, it will be a single day. From our view, we could probably turn it as quickly as a few days to a week — we put a call out, someone submits their idea, we analyze their idea, we check their company profile, we then invite a subset that have met the criteria,” he told Defense News in an exclusive Sept. 7 interview.

“But then, when they come in to pitch their idea, they have a reasonable expectation of leaving with funding. We're ready to go or not go on a single day,” he continued. “And the contract length? One page.”

When Defense News spoke with Roper, he had just gotten the green light to move ahead with this new way of awarding contracts. The effort remains in its early stages, and dates for Startup Day have not been chosen, although Roper believes the service could hold a series of Startup Days as soon as the end of this year or early 2019.

The exact format is still being worked out as well: Program managers will be able to suggest precise technical problems that they'd like to see solutions for, but he'd also like to give companies the latitude to pitch their products for requirements the Air Force doesn't even know it has.

Companies will submit proposals, which will be evaluated by Air Force program and contacting officials who will also analyze the company's profile — its number of employees, business type, product maturity and potential impact. But the goal is to have the actual events structured like a meeting with an angel investor, not the typical PowerPoint-laden gatherings of military officials and defense primes.

“We've got to make this look more like Kickstarter than a defense industry day,” Roper said. “We may even put them on contract swiping a Square reader. We have government purchase cards that we're able to use for small purchases — up to $150k per transaction. That may be the mechanism we use because most companies that are startups, I'm going to guess, have a Paypal account.”

An industry day geared specifically for start-up companies is just the latest way the Air Force is trying to harness a commercial technology boom where innovation has often been led by startups. Last year, the service announced the creation of a new organization called AFWERX that it began to help engage elements of the private sector that don't usually work with the government.

However, even with AFWERX in operation, it takes the Air Force six to eight weeks to award a contract at its very fastest. And that's still too slow of a pace to enable it to work effectively with startup companies, Roper said.

“There's this artificial ceiling that small companies can't reach to work with the government simply because they're too small to wait for a paycheck. If they're not on contract with us now, they've got to work with an investor fast enough to fund cash flow rates that startups need to grow,” he said.

Roper doesn't expect all investments to bear fruit, but efforts like Startup Day have other advantages, he said. It gets Air Force contracting officers more comfortable with executing rapid contracts, potentially gives program managers a more effective way of spending their small business dollars and allows the service to have a voice in the kinds of technologies that cutting-edge companies develop.

“I hope that will mean that every year when we do this — if it's successful, we'll do it every year—companies will have us on their radar screen and think, ‘The Air Force is a great way for us to get from being a company of five to a company of 50...and then we'll go off and become billionaires working with Amazon and Google,'” he said. “But this way they'll know us and their products and projects will have been influenced by us, hopefully for the betterment of the Air Force.”

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/17/air-force-aims-to-move-startups-from-pitch-to-contract-award-in-24-hours

Sur le même sujet

  • To be competitive in 5G, the US must play offense, not defense

    22 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR

    To be competitive in 5G, the US must play offense, not defense

    Joel Thayer , Harold Feld , and Daniel Hoffman The Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation are far from the first to try to upend an independent agency's proceeding. However, these executive agencies have been far more aggressive than normal in that pursuit in response to the Federal Communications Commission's April 20 Ligado decision. This dispute significantly compromises the United States' leadership in global markets — by both undermining domestic initiatives and by undercutting our policy positions internationally. The recent dispute concerning Ligado pits the DoD and DOT on one side, and the Federal Communications Commission, the State Department and Attorney General Bill Barr on the other. This dispute involves the FCC's unanimous decision to grant new wireless entrant Ligado's request to modify its licenses to provide a national, low-power 5G network for Internet of Things services. The Ligado decision took nearly two decades, all told. It is not overstating to say that what should be a straightforward engineering decision has devolved into a watershed moment that, if Congress doesn't act, may prevent the U.S. from deploying 5G at a rate greater or equal to China or other international sovereigns. Worse, it will deprive Americans of competition, wireless innovation and related economic growth for years to come. IoT enabled by 5G will revolutionize everything from precision agriculture to self-driving cars. By focusing exclusively on IoT, Ligado can expedite the deployment of this technology while traditional wireless carriers focus on building out consumer-oriented 5G networks. This will accelerate deployment of 5G networks and introduce competition into the nascent IoT market. This is why Barr (whose Antitrust Division concentrates on competition) and the State Department (which wants to see the U.S. retain wireless leadership in global markets) have supported the FCC's decision. Ostensibly, the DoD and DOT say that Ligado will interfere with sensitive GPS operations. But its rationale does not survive even casual scrutiny. In recent weeks, internal emails from the DoD have surfaced showing that at least some of the DoD's own spectrum experts categorically agreed with the FCC that Ligado posed no threat, but were overruled by their superiors. The real issue is that the DoD and DOT are the largest and most powerful federal spectrum users. Any growth in 5G will require them to make further adjustments. Oddly, neither agency operates near Ligado's spectrum, and yet they seek to impede Ligado's ability to innovate in it. Put simply, Ligdao is just the unlucky party caught in the middle of their broader interagency spectrum fight. Congress made the FCC an independent, expert agency to prevent precisely this kind of situation. One of the most important reasons the FCC even exists is to set uniform rules for commercial wireless networks so that equipment can interoperate and companies can innovate, which ensures consumers ultimately reap the benefits of their products. Unfortunately, the Senate and House Armed Services committees intend to end run the agency by including provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that, in effect, prevent stakeholders that work with the Defense Department — either directly or indirectly — from using Ligado's network, which includes just about every major company in America. The U.S. squabbling with itself only yields an uncontested “win” for China. Our competitors are coordinated and not stumbling over themselves on petty spectrum disputes. They are certainly not waiting for the United States government to get its act together. To the contrary, as the House Appropriations Committee observed in its report on the FCC's budget: “The U.S. is falling behind other countries in the allocation of [5G] spectrum.” Chinese-owned companies Huawei and ZTE have already bought up significant wireless infrastructure for its 5G networks across the globe and have begun deploying IoT services in the same or similar bands the FCC authorized for Ligado. If that happens, it's China that sets the terms for 5G, which adversely affects our nation's security given China's penchant for international data aggregation. Upending the FCC would hand China a nearly insurmountable advantage in the race to 5G. Also, if Congress sides with the DoD and DOT instead of observing the FCC's 17-year-long rigorous testing and analysis, which included that of the DOT's and the Defense Department's own spectrum experts, then the FCC will be effectively paralyzed going forward. Congress needs to put a stop to these games before they do permanent damage and let the FCC do its job. Joel Thayer focuses his practice on telecommunications, regulatory and transaction matters, as well as privacy and cybersecurity issues. Harold Feld has worked in telecommunications law for more than 20 years. He is senior vice president of Public Knowledge, a 501(c) that advocates for policies to expand broadband access. Public Knowledge has provided support for Ligado several times in the FCC proceeding. Ligado sponsors its IP3 award at the $5,000 level. Daniel Hoffman worked in the CIA, where he was a three-time station chief and a senior executive clandestine services officer. He has been a Fox News contributor since May 2018. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/23/to-be-competitive-in-5g-the-us-must-play-offense-not-defense/

  • Defense Innovation Unit partners with Orbital Insight to take on satellite spoofing

    18 février 2022 | International, Aérospatial

    Defense Innovation Unit partners with Orbital Insight to take on satellite spoofing

    Under a new contract, Orbital Insight will use commercially available data and advanced algorithms to detect and alert operators to possible spoofing attempts.

  • Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming

    22 juin 2018 | International, Naval

    Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming

    By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is looking at extending the life of its surface ships by as much as 13 years, meaning some ships might be 53 years old when they leave the fleet. Here's the main problem: keeping their combat systems relevant. The Navy's front-line combatants ― cruisers and destroyers ― are incredibly expensive to upgrade, in part because one must cut open the ship and remove fixtures that were intended to be permanent when they were installed. When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million. Now, the capability and function of the new Baseline 9 suite on Normandy is staggering. The cost of doing that to all the legacy cruisers and destroyers in the fleet would be equally staggering: it would cost billions. So why is that? Why are the most advanced ships on the planet so difficult to keep relevant? And if the pace of change is picking up, how can the Navy stay relevant in the future without breaking the national piggy bank? Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager, understands this issue better than most. At this week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium, Vandroff described why its so darn hard to upgrade the old ships and how future designs will do better. Here's what Vandroff had to say: “Flexibility is a requirement that historically we haven't valued, and we haven't valued it for very good reasons: It wasn't important. “When you think of a ship that was designed in the ‘70s and built in the ‘80s, we didn't realize how fast and how much technology was going to change. We could have said: ‘You know what? I'm going to have everything bolted.' Bolt down the consoles in [the combat information center], bolt in the [vertical launch system] launchers ― all of it bolted so that we could more easily pop out and remove and switch out. “The problem was we didn't value that back then. We were told to value survivability and density because we were trying to pack maximum capability into the space that we have. That's why you have what you have with the DDG-51 today. And they are hard to modernize because we valued survivability and packing the maximum capability into the minimum space. And we achieved that because that was the requirement at the time. “I would argue that now as we look at requirements for future ships, flexibility is a priority. You are going to have to balance it. What if I have to bolt stuff down? Well, either we are going to give up some of my survivability standards or I'm going to take up more space to have the equivalent standards with an different kind of mounting system, for example. And that is going to generate a new set of requirements ― it's going to drive design in different directions than it went before. “I suppose you could accuse the ship designers in the 1980s of failure to foresee the future, but that's all of us. And the point is they did what they were told to do. Flexibility is what we want now, and I think you will see it drive design from this point forward because it is now something we are forced to value.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/

Toutes les nouvelles