1 eDEP Contractual aspects eDEP Contractual aspects Mohamed ELLEJMI Mohamed ELLEJMI June 2008 June 2008 European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

2 Contents Previous Contract Current contract 2008 developments Budget Processes

3 Previous Contract eDEP Core contract (2006 – 2007) Maintenance service (EEC/RIF funded : 89K/2007 and 62k/2006) RIF/EEC sponsored developments (EEC/RIF funded : 248K/2007 and 114k/2006) APT sponsored developments (paid for by APT : 215K/2007 and 62K/2006) AVT sponsored developments (paid for by AVT : 22K in 2007 and 5k in 2006) STORIA included in this contract “MTV” separate Contract TRS A (197K in 2006/2007) Private treaty for the ITWP connection to TwoSim 3D simulator (94K in 2007) 2006/2007 : investment of 1 million for three projects

4 EEC/RIF Contract Maintenance Service 1 st Level support service Ad-hoc tasks Setting up demos, experiments Investigating issues on-site 2 nd Level support service Bug fixing in previously released software delivery service Actually only 3 deliveries per year Fixed price Merging of all development lines, non-regression testing, correction of found bugs (due to the developments) Delivery on-site into CM Synergy Maintenance Report (delivery contents, test results) Perfective maintenance

5 Current Contract EEC/RIF ESCAPE: AEG/TCT/STORIA Perfective Maintenance Support CNS AVT project (Leo Van der Hoorn) APT Integrated Tower Position (Stephane Dubisson) FASTI TCT and FASTI Demonstrator (Chris Brain, Bogdan Petricel, Christopher Costelloe) EHQ/DAS CIMACT (Alain Fowler, Jan Scholz)

6 What’s New in 2008 Maintenance Improvement: Simplification of test documentation and alignment with eDEP SRD Automated test Perfective Maintenance TCT in ESCAPE New eDEP Launching interface Map editor PWP development

7 Budget 2008/2009 For 2008: Maintenance: 108k ERS : 146K CIMACT: 136 K AVT: 11k APT: 150k FASTI: 120k RST ?  Total 671K+ ? for 2008 For 2009: need to raise a new contract

8 Development Process All developments have a Work Plan. The work plan defines The requirement The proposed architecture changes The test strategy Detailed design issues if needed Proposed documentation updates Developments fit in with the client need and client timescales (need to be flexible and client oriented) merges parallel development lines as needed during the delivery to EEC

9 Configuration Management Master database (in Graffica premises at Malvern CVS based Bretigny developers use this Malvern database (via remote link) Perfectly integrated into Eclipse Backup database in EEC/RIF Configuration Management (CM Synergy) Re-synchronised every 4 months as part of delivery process One exception : AEG (ACE eDEP Gateway) – which is developed under Configuration Management CM Synergy

10 Contract Concepts EEC/RIF contracts are based upon the “Phased Tasking” model Tasks are broken down into 3 categories Initial Tasks Optional Tasks Future Tasks

11 Contract Concepts Initial Tasks EUROCONTROL provides a detailed task specification Bidders provide a fixed, non-reversible price Task is implicitly ordered at contract signature Optional tasks EUROCONTROL provides a detailed task specification Bidders provide a fixed, non-reversible price Task is not implicitly ordered at contract signature. EUROCONTROL at some point during the contract may raise this task (no change to specification, no change to price)

12 Contract Concepts Future Tasks EUROCONTROL provides a rough outline of the task EUROCONTROL provides guidance and/or historical data Bidder provides A Cost envelope for the future task A Costing Model for the future task Task is not implicitly ordered at contract signature. During the contract, EUROCONTROL may raise the task, providing at that moment a detailed task specification The supplier analyses the detailed specification, and calculates a fixed non-reversible price, using the previously agreed costing model

13 Contract Concepts Future Tasks : Cost Envelope Bidders estimate a cost envelope (with some margin) to cover this task Given the EUROCONTROL task definition is “rough” then obviously the bidder cost envelope is “rough” Estimating a large cost envelope is not necessarily bad (the costing model is more important) For a bid, all the future task cost envelopes are added-up to give a total contract envelope. This is considered as the “potential to spend” 2008/2009 Envelope: 989 K€ 2008/2009 Envelope: 989 K€

14 Contract Concepts Future Tasks : Costing Model The Costing Model explains how the supplier shall compute the real cost of a future task, once EUROCONTROL provides a real and detailed specification Costing models vary from simple to complex. Typically, a complex costing model defines Effort profiles : e.g. a typical s/w development would be 12% Design+TestPlan, 30% development, 10% test, 20% support to Integration,… Overheads : e.g. 10% project management overhead, 4% Quality Staff Profiles /Costs: Project Manager (620€/day), Senior Engineer(560€/d), Junior Engineer(520€/d) Effort/Staff relationship: e.g. 80% of Design/Test is done by Senior Engineer

15 Contract Execution The contract is signed for a Committed amount Total of Initial Tasks (ordered implicitly at contract start) Maximum Contract value which is Total of initial tasks Total of optional tasks Total of future tasks Initial Task 1 Optional Task 2 Future Task 3 Future Task 4 Future Task 5

16 Contract Execution During the contract, Optional tasks may be activated No change to specification No change to price. Committed contract value increases, remaining within the overall maximum amount. Initial Task 1 Optional Task 2 Future Task 3 Future Task 4 Future Task 5

17 Contract Execution During the contract, Future tasks may be activated EUROCONTROL provides a detailed specification Supplier provides a technical response Once approved, supplier provides a financial response (using the Costing Model) The real cost may vary from the original “guess” given in the CFT response (this is natural) However, the new committed contract value must remain within the overall contract maximum value. Initial Task 1 Optional Task 2 Future Task 3 Future Task 4 Future Task 5

18

19 Core code sharing AVT 90% core ITWP 30% core CIMACT 80% core LARA 30% core FASTI 90% core Core 100% core