Measure Twice, Cut Once


in a reluctance to respond to contract proposals. The result of all of this uncertainty? Warfighters and first responders don’t get the quality systems they need as quickly as they need them. The key to test repeatability and lab to lab reproducibility of data is standard test methodologies that are sufficiently detailed and validated. In the past, here at DOD, our own methodologies were not detailed enough to clearly explain the test procedures, and different labs were running what they thought was the same test and getting different results. So what we have learned is to make our methodologies detailed enough to define the test so that any qualified lab can reproduce the results. That’s science.


SJ: Do you feel that feedback from the field supports T&E? Yes. At this point in time, very little of that is happening in DOD but, in the last year and a half, we have been working towards the development of a field assessment programme with an initial effort going on with John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab and a DOD assessment team in the Republic of Korea. This team is working through exercises to start an initial effort for field assessment, another whole article in itself. You are right though; we expect that generating good feedback loops will close gaps in the process of understanding whether our T&E is working as well as we think it is.


SJ: Was the “Whole of Government” approach on-going before the President’s National Strategy for CBRNE Standards was signed out? Yes, we were starting to think on these lines before the National Strategy came out. Anyone who has worked in this area for any period of time has realised that CBRND T&E needs to be standardized, but the timing of the National Strategy release was very helpful, as we were working at that time to obtain community concurrence on our Tecmipt process. The National Strategy covers not just T&E Standards, but standardization across the board including performance, operating and training standards. It’s critical for efficiencies across the full CBRND spectrum.


SJ: The Tecmipt seems to be a very innovative idea – How do the Tecmipt T&E Standards relate to other existing consensus standards like Ansi, Astm, etc.? We leverage existing standards whenever possible! Many of the existing standards are a blend of performance standards with some test criteria. In the past, DOD has only partially leveraged other existing consensus standards for CB testing, because the detailed procedures for tests and/or supporting information were not part of those standards. Methodology development and validation was required before the detailed test procedures could be published in repeatable test standards documents. We also have developed our own unique infrastructure for T&E that requires our own test methodologies in many cases, because the test methodologies must address the DOD mission. Threat representation concerns were seldom addressed in consensus standards. But now that we are involved in the standardization of radiological and nuclear (rad/nuc) test methodologies with joint Service and interagency coordination, we are looking at previously existing consensus standards as a starting point; This has been especially helpful, since consensus standards have traditionally been used by the rad/nuc test community across the rest of the federal government.


SJ: And will industry be part of the development process? We have already taken actions to get industry and academia involved in the Tecmipt T&E Standards development process. Battelle Hazardous Materials Research Center (HMRC) and North Carolina State University provided input and technical review of TOPs and T&E infrastructure requirements documents, and we have merged a Johns Hopkins University Applied Research Lab bio surveillance test bed development effort into our bio surveillance Capat. We currently have 23 standards we intend to share, and many more in the works which we intend to make available in final draft to industry and academic partners for feedback.


SJ: Lots of really good work has gone into this work – do you anticipate that equipment that goes through DOD testing will be recognised by other agencies? That’s the goal. We have other federal partners involved in the Capats helping to develop the standards (e.g. the Rad/Nuc CAPAT has 22 agencies involved). We are currently obtaining interagency concurrences at the O6 level. The near- term goal is to obtain signed interagency leadership agreement that the Tecmipt T&E Standards are, at the very least, a “tool in their tool box”, which will greatly facilitate the sharing of data.


SJ: Many other countries are very interested in this work, or are trying to develop standards themselves. How do people get involved with the US efforts? We have been working through the T&E and Simulation Working Group (TESWG) under the Australia Canada UK US (ASCAUKUS) Chemical Biological Radiological (CBR) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Currently, Tecmipt T&E Standards are being used as the basis for ASCAUKUS Multinational Test Operating Procedures (MTOPs). There are numerous bilateral and trilateral agreements that will also be able to benefit from sharing T&E standards. We are being very open about sharing. We just need to get the agreements in place.


SJ: Looking forward, does this initiative, with the additional costs of T&E, potentially squeeze already tight programmes?


Contrary to the popular opinion that T&E is a cost driver, good testing with T&E Standards is a money saver. System performance characterized through standardized T&E reduces costly, redundant testing and assures that all stakeholders have a common understanding of the system’s performance parameters and limitations. This enables cost-effective procurement of the right “fit-for-purpose” CBRND equipment. The DOD CBRND Tecmipt is demonstrating the power of community collaboration to improve T&E in a constrained budget environment. Our warfighters and first responders are the ultimate beneficiaries.


CBRNe South America 2012, 13-14 March, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. More information on www.icbrnevents.com 60 CBRNe WORLD February 2012 www.cbrneworld.com


CBRNeWORLD


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76