Use Scenario To Answer The Questions

Use scenario presented below to answer the questions in the scenario

Use scenario presented below to answer the questions in the scenario. Instructions: The NNS is currently working with their subcontractor, American Coatings Incorporated, to develop a new anechoic treatment for the hull tiles under modification P0002 dated July 29, 2015. On September 11, 2015, Emmett Smith of NNS discovers a new polymer, which will make the use of sonar-absorbing tiles obsolete. The new hull treatment will only require a coating of this new polymer. Emmett notifies the PCU Delaware’s program manager who requests Emmett to write up his new polymer hull treatment as an engineering contract change and request a contract modification.

Emmett complies by identifying the classified technical aspects of the new polymer under closed cover and develops a cost estimate of $1,131,000/sub ($3000 per linear foot for a sub that is 377 feet in length and 34 feet in the beam). Emmett also identifies associated cost, schedule, and performance risks with implementing his new innovative hull coating approach. He forwards his engineering contract change proposal to the PM who forwards it to Ms. Biddle, NNS’s contracting officer. Ms. Biddle develops a bilateral contract modification for the proposed change and forwards it to the Navy’s Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) at the Naval Sea Systems Command. The Navy PCO forwards the proposal to the Virginia-class Program Management Office (PMO). The PMO’s engineers are intrigued with the innovative proposal. They recognize the potential benefits of not layering their subs with sonar absorbent panels. Using only the hull coating as a shield for enemy sonar detection would significantly reduce the lifecycle costs by 20% (estimated life cycle cost per sub is $7 billion over a 30-year period).

This new approach would offset the cost of the tiles currently installed and maintained on each sub. The current tiles cost $840 million and 6 months to initially install. The new coating could be applied in 90 days or less; this could potentially reduce the build time by 3 months. Based upon the proposal, the Navy and their partners could share in the lifecycle savings with a 70/30 split in cost savings. This change is forwarded to the program sponsor, Admiral Johnson.

Admiral Johnson initially likes the proposal but feels the proposed change is technically too risky. The current fleet is already outfitted with the proven existing technology using the hull anechoic coating and tiles. He tells the Navy’s PCO and PMO that he does not want these tiles on the PCU Delaware and orders them to tell NNS that this proposal, although innovative and promising, is out of scope for the existing program and contract. The PMO engineers acquiesce, and the PCO notifies NNS that the Navy denies their request for the change. The Vice President of the Virginia-class submarines at NNS and Ms. Biddle convey this news. The engineer suggests that NNS submit a claim against the government to ask for an official determination of what is within scope and what is outside the scope, especially in light of the recent P0002 modification. Write a short essay (3-5 pages) synthesizing the case and including relevant scholarly practitioner references responding to the following question: Using your expert judgment, the PMBOK® course materials, and other scholarly references, analyze the situation and describe what actions and decisions you think NNS should take as a result of the current situation. Justify and explain your response(s).

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex environment of contract modifications and technological innovation in military systems, the scenario involving Newport News Shipbuilding’s (NNS) recent efforts to introduce a new polymer hull coating exemplifies the multifaceted challenges faced by project managers. The case demonstrates the importance of strategic decision-making, scope management, stakeholder communication, and risk assessment within the framework provided by the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®). This analysis explores the local issues—such as scope delineation and risk concerns—while positioning NNS's actions within broader project management principles and best practices supported by scholarly literature.

The core problem in this scenario revolves around the regulatory and contractual boundary of the project scope, especially concerning the integration of advanced hull coating technology. NNS's proposal for a polymer-based hull coating as a substitute for the existing anechoic tiles was categorized as an innovative change with significant performance, cost, and schedule implications. However, its rejection by the Navy’s leadership, notably Admiral Johnson, due to perceived technical risk and scope restrictions, exposes tension between technological advancement and contractual scope control. As per the PMBOK® Guide (PMI, 2017), scope management is fundamental in defining, controlling, and validating project boundaries, which become complex when innovative solutions challenge existing scopes.

From a decision-making perspective, NNS's response should involve a careful analysis rooted in the scope management process. Since the Navy has explicitly stated that the change is outside the scope of the current contract, this triggers an analysis of whether such a change warrants a formal change request or a claim for scope clarification. The engineer’s recommendation to submit a claim aligns with the PMBOK® advice on managing scope changes through formal change control processes (PMI, 2017). It is vital for NNS to document all communications, technical justifications, and risk assessments to establish a clear record of the project’s scope boundaries and the technical rationale behind the proposed change.

Furthermore, proactive stakeholder management becomes crucial. According to Schwalbe (2015), effective stakeholder engagement involves identifying stakeholders, understanding their perspectives, and managing their expectations. In this case, NNS must consider the Navy’s risk aversion, desire for proven technology, and strategic priorities. Engaging the Navy’s decision-makers through transparent communication and technical demonstrations can help mitigate misconceptions about the innovation’s risks. Simultaneously, NNS should leverage its technical expertise to prepare a comprehensive technical and risk analysis, emphasizing the potential lifecycle cost savings and schedule benefits, which are substantial economic incentives aligned with the Navy’s strategic goals.

In terms of risk management, the uncertainty associated with new polymer technology needs thorough evaluation. According to Hillson (2016), risk management involves identifying, analyzing, and responding to project risks. While Admiral Johnson perceives the change as too risky, NNS should employ structured risk analysis tools—such as Monte Carlo simulations and risk register updates—to quantify and communicate the actual risk levels associated with the new coating. This technical approach can provide a more evidence-based foundation for the decision-makers, potentially alleviating their concerns about technological and schedule risks.

Given the existing contractual constraints, NNS's options include pursuing a formal scope clarification or scope change process via a claim or a formal request for a contract modification. As recommended by PMBOK®, NNS should prepare a detailed Change Request referencing the scope of work, supporting technical data, and risk mitigation strategies. If the Navy's position remains unaltered, NNS may consider submitting a claim for equitable adjustment or an other than full and open competition (A&E) claim—aligned with procedures outlined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 (FAR, 2020). Although such approaches involve legal and contractual considerations, their employment ensures NNS preserves its rights and potential compensation for work outside the current scope.

In addition to procedural actions, NNS should explore strategic negotiations with Navy stakeholders. Employing interest-based negotiation techniques, NNS can emphasize mutual benefits—such as lifecycle cost savings and project schedule reductions—that resonated with the Navy’s original interest in cost efficiency. These negotiations should be supported by detailed technical documentation and risk assessments to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the innovation. Building coalition stakeholder support—such as from the Virginia-class PMO or other Navy technical leadership—may increase the likelihood of scope expansion or at least a reevaluation of the decision.

Finally, lessons from scholarly practice emphasize the importance of institutionalizing lessons learned from the current situation. As Walker (2015) argues, organizations that proactively analyze project challenges and adapt policy frameworks foster resilience and innovation in project management. NNS should consider formalizing a process for evaluating technological innovations outside existing scopes, including enhanced early stakeholder engagement, strategic risk management, and contractual flexibility provisions.

In conclusion, NNS’s most prudent course of action is to pursue a formal scope clarification or claim process supported by comprehensive technical and risk analyses, while simultaneously engaging stakeholders transparently to advocate for the innovative hull coating. By doing so, NNS aligns with PMBOK® principles of scope control, stakeholder engagement, and risk management, ensuring its rights are preserved and future innovation opportunities are safeguarded. A strategic combination of procedural, technical, and negotiation-based actions will position NNS to effectively address the current challenge and enhance its capacity for managing complex innovation projects within evolving contractual environments.

References

• Hillson, D. (2016). Managing risk in projects. Routledge.
• PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
• Schwalbe, K. (2015). Information Technology Project Management (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Walker, P. (2015). Lessons learned in project management: Best practices and pitfalls. Journal of Strategic Project Management, 6(1), 45-52.
• Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). (2020). Part 15: Contracting by Negotiation. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-15