B5 Does not explode on presence, proximity, or contact of a person (Ottawa)
0 = explodes on presence, proximity, or contact
1 = does not explode on presence, proximity, or contact; is strictly nonlethal
In assessing overall technical risk, the committee assigned the highest score to systems already in production and progressively lower scores to systems with technologies beyond the state of the art. This very simple scoring was helpful for assessing the more “futuristic” alternatives.
C0 0 = in production
−1 = capability has been demonstrated
−2 = capability not prototyped, but uses technology within the state of the art
−3 = technology is beyond the state of the art
The consideration of tactics and operational concepts was specified in the Statement of Task. This criterion was given a simple yes or no on the score sheet to indicate whether changes in tactics or doctrine would be necessary to implement the alternative (see D0 on score sheet).
Because cost2 was not included in the Statement of Task and because the determinations by the committee were only estimates, scores for this criterion only indicate the committee's evaluation process. The following costs were considered for each alternative:
E1 Research and development
0 = weapon already exists
−1 = known, funded cost; relatively low cost; prototype exists or is technologically easy to achieve
−2 = no prototype, but elements of the system exist; technology appears to be straightforward
−3 = conceptual stage; requires a technology breakthrough
E2 Procurement cost
0 = production base exists/has been produced
−1 = production capability exists, anticipated product costs are low
−2 = requires complex manufacturing process and/or high product cost
−3 = manufacturing processes are conceptual, costs unknown
2 Despite the sponsor's admonition that cost not be considered a factor, it was included because the committee believed it might be a consideration for the future. However, cost estimates were rudimentary.