Army Cost Review Board Office
Mort Anvari Mort.Anvari@US.Army.mil
Steve Loftus Steve.Loftus@US.Army.mil
1
HQ Department of the Army
Secretary of the Army Chief of Staff, Army
Under Secretary Vice Chief of
of the Army Staff, Army
Assistant Secretaries of the Army
Financial Acquisition,
Installations & Manpower &
Civil Works Management Logistics &
Environment Reserve Affairs
& Comptroller Technology)
Financial
Cost & Economics Budget G8
Operations
2
DASA,
Cost & Economics
Director Director
Chief,
Acquisition Costing Programs & Strategy
Cost Review
Board
Cost Unit Installation
Management Mission Costing
C4ISR Weapon Costing
Cost Policy
Costing Systems & Research
3
Cost Review Board (CRB)
• The ASA(FM&C) Formed the Army Cost Review Board to review Cost
Estimates for Major Weapon & Information Systems
• Created in Response to the Need for:
A Comprehensive Army Cost Position, Acceptable to Acquisition &
Financial Management Communities & Supports PPBES
The CRB Reviews Major Weapon & Information Systems at Their Critical Acquisition
Decision Points. All ACAT I Programs & Programs of Special Interest Must Have a
4
Recommended ACP Briefed to the CRB.
Cost Analysis Requirement
MS 0 MS I MS II MS III
O Program Definition Engineering & Production,
Concept
L & Manufacturing Fielding/
Exploration
D Risk Reduction Development Deployment
(EMD)
Cost Estimates
Needed
A B C
Concept Component
System System Production Rate Production &
Exploration Advanced
N Integration Demo Readiness & LRIP Deployment
Development
E Review Review Support
Review
W Concept & Technology System Development&
Production & Deployment
Development Demonstration
Pre-Systems Systems Acquisition Sustainment
Acquisition (Engineering and Manufacturing
Development, Demonstration, LRIP &
Production) 5
Cost Estimating Process
Definition Data Collect Estimate Review/ Final
Planning Normalize Formulation Presentation Document
DOCUMENTATION
6
Cost Analysis Model
Data/CERs
Develop Cost LCC Estimates
Estimate Cost Drivers
Structure
and WBS
Start Establish Prepare Cost
Test Total
Ground Estimates Prepare
System
Rules and for Each Documentation
Estimate
Assumptions Element
Compile
Data Base/
CERs/Models Reasonableness
Engineering
Sensitivity
Analogy
Analysis
Parametrics
Cost-Risk
Expert Opinion
Assessment
7
Situation
• You have just been tasked to develop a cost
estimate, that is, a professional opinion
about the cost of an item, a service or a
thing.
• Let’s discuss a process for organizing and
developing this estimate.
8
Definition and Planning
• Influences the success of the estimate
• Understanding the requirements and how
you approach the process will establish the
guidelines and procedures for the estimate.
• Ask lots of questions…They help you
understand the requirement.
9
Questions
• Why is this cost estimate needed?
• What decisions are pending on the results of this
estimate?
• Will the estimate be briefed and to whom?
• Will the results be incorporated into some
document?
• What does the recipient expect to have included or
excluded?
• What excursions or variations from the baseline
are anticipated?
10
Questions Continued
• What are the program and funding constraints
especially if the program is a Joint Program?
• What are the time constraints for this estimate?
• What is the acquisition phase of the program?
• Is the program definition mature?
• Does technology exist today to design, develop, test
and manufacture the system?
• What is the interrelationship with other systems?
• Are there previous contracts? How many? What type?
• How have the contractors performed to date?
11
Definition and Planning
Know Purpose of the Estimate
• Main purposes of estimates:
– Budget Formulation
– Comparative Studies
– Source Selection
12
Purpose of Estimate
Budget Formulation Estimates
• Program Office Estimate (POE)
• Component Cost Analysis (CCA)
• Independent Cost Estimate (ICE)
• What-if exercises
• Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM)
• Should Cost Estimates
• CAIV
13
Purpose of Estimate
Comparative Studies Estimates
• Making cost & benefit comparisons between
alternatives
– Economic Analysis (EA)
– Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
– Force Structure
– Trade-off Studies
– Source Selection
– Prioritization
14
Definition and Planning
Defining the System
• Adequate description of the technical and program
characteristics of the system
• What are the physical and performance
characteristics?
• What are the development, production, and
deployment schedules?
• How many systems are to be produced?
• How will the systems be supported: contract, in-
house, two or three levels of maintenance?
15
Defining the System
Integrated System Schedule
1993 1994 1995 1996 TODAY 1997 1998 1999 2000
ACTIVITY J A S O ND J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D
LLTI PEO IPR LRIP DECISION MRRB MILESTONE III
PROGRAM REVIEWS
ENGINEERING &
MANUFACTURING TECH SUPPORT
DEVELOPMENT
LETHALITY
ENHANCEMENT
LITE I / WARHEAD / LOW DEVELOPM ENT
COST BST
QL UE
FT T LUT
TEST & EVALUATION IOTE QUAL (3)(6)
LFT (A) LFT II, III, FLIGHT
LIVE FIRE TEST (B,C) (8,4) I
(26)
LOG DEMO II LD
II
PROD VER TEST PVT
(25 MS L + 10 CLU)
ENHANCED LEGEND
MSL CLU
PRODUCIBILITY (28) (9) QL - QUICK LOOK
PROGRAM FTT - FIELD TACTICAL TRAINER
UE - USER EVALUATION
LOW RATE INITIAL CA
LUT - LIMITED USER TEST
PRODUCTION CA - CONTRACT AWARD
FY94 MSLS - 698 MRRB - MATERIEL RELEASE
CLUs - 55 LLTI LEAD TIME PRODUCTION REVIEW BOARD
FY95 MSLS - 872 LEAD TIME PRODUCTION
CLUs - 97 CA CA
FY96 MSLS - 1015 LEAD TIME PRODUCTION
CLUs - 108 CA
MULTIYEAR I & II CA
(3 YR CONTRACT)
ARMY USM C LEAD TIME PRODUCTION
FY97 M SLS - 1020 141
CLUs - 206 48
FY98 M SLS - 1080 194 CA CA M YII
CLUs - 270 140
FY99 M SLS - 3316 741
RANGER 82nd 82nd
CLUs - 423 133 FUE FUE
COMPL FIELDING COMPLETE
FIELDING USA BEGINS USMC
HANDOFF FT. HOOD NTC
AWE 16
Defining the System
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
• WBS defined in MIL-HDBK-881 as:
– product-oriented breakdown of hardware,
software, services, data and facilities that define
the system.
• WBS breaks a total job down into manageable
pieces & portrays the way work is to be done.
• WBS displays a company’s reporting structure.
• Program managers may cite MIL-HDBK-881 “for
guidance only” in contract solicitations.
17
MIL-Handbook-881 (WBS)
18
Defining the System
Cost Element Structure (CES)
1.0 Research Development Test & Evaluation
(RDT&E)
2.0 Production
3.0 Military Construction (MILCON)
4.0 Military Pay and Allowances (MPA)
5.0 Operating and Maintenance Army (OMA)
19
Defining the System
COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE – 1.0 RDT&E
CES# ELEMENT: FY00C$M TY$M
1.01 DEV. ENG. $ 39.039M $38.260M
1.02 PEP 0.408 0.386
1.03 DEV. TOOL. 0.457 0.450
1.04 PROTO MFG. 110.421 107.724
1.05 SEPM 78.266 76.363
1.06 SYS T&E 11.112 10.927
1.07 TRAINING 1.989 1.954
1.08 DATA 3.439 3.413
1.09 SUPP EQUIP. 4.897 4.758
1.10 DEV. FACILITIES 0.0 0.0
1.11 OTHER 0.968 0.928
20
Defining the System
COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE – 2.0 PROCUREMENT
CES# ELEMENT: FY00C$M TY$M
2.01 NON REC PROD. $ 16.110M $ 16.583M
2.02 REC. PROD 1,169.348 1,312.377
2.03 ENG. CHG 0.0 0.0
2.04 SEPM 116.637 132.258
2.05 SYS T&E 12.564 14.437
2.06 TRAINING 28.880 31.499
2.07 DATA 2.073 2.300
2.08 SUPP. EQUIP. 146.460 158.304
2.09 OPER./SITE/ACT. 0.0 0.0
2.10 FIELDING 89.525 101.635
2.11 TRAIN. AMMO/MSLS 59.001 79.482
2.12 WAR RESV. 0.0 0.0
2.13 MODS 236.619 280.729
2.14 OTHER 51.739 64.129
21
Defining the System
COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE – 3.0 MILCON
CES# ELEMENT: FY00C$M TY$M
3.01 DEVELOP. CONSTRUCTION
3.02 PRODUCT. CONSTRUCTION
3.03 OPERATION/SITE ACTIVATION
3.04 OTHER MILCON
22
Defining the System
COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE – 4.0
Military Pay&Allowances (MPA)
CES# ELEMENT: FY00C$M TY$M
4.01 CREW
4.02 MAINTENANCE
4.03 SYSTEM SPECIFIC SUPPORT
4.04 SEPM
4.05 REPLACEMENT PERSONNEL
4.06 OTHER MPA
23
Defining the System
COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE – 5.0
Operating & Maintenance Army (OMA)
CES# ELEMENT: FY00C$M TY$M
5.01 FIELD MAINT., CIV LABOR
5.02 SYS. SPECIFIC BASE OPS
5.03 REPLENISHMENT DLRs
5.04 REPLEN. CONSUMMABLES
5.05 POL
5.06 END ITEM MAINTENANCE
5.07 TRANSPORTATION
5.08 SOFTWARE
5.09 SEPM
5.10 TRAINING
5.11 OTHER OMA
24
Defining the System
Cost Analysis Requirements Description
(CARD)
• Source of a system’s description
• Describes important features
• Is provided to other groups preparing cost
estimates
• Helps ensure all groups are costing out the same
“program.”
• Prepared by program office; approved by
DoD Component Program Executive Officer
25
Defining the System
Cost Analysis Requirements Description
(CARD) Continued
1.0 System Overview
1.1 System Characterization
1.1.1 System Description
1.1.2 System Funcitonal Relationships
1.1.3 System Configuration
1.1.4 Government Furnished Equipment/Information
1.2 System Characteristics
1.2.1 Technical/Physical Description
1.2.1.1 Subsystem Description
1.2.1.2 Functional and Performance Description
1.2.2 Software Description
1.3 System Quality Factors
1.3.1 Reliability
1.3.2 Maintainability
1.3.3 Availability
1.3.4 Portability and Transportability
1.3.5 Additional Quality Factors
1.4 Embedded Security
1.5 Predecessor/Reference System
2.0 Risk
26
Defining the System
CARD Continued
3.0 System Operational Concept
3.1 Organizational Structure
3.2 Basing and Deployment Description
3.3 Security
3.4 Logistics
4.0 Quantity Requirements
5.0 System Manpower Requirements
6.0 System Activity Rates
7.0 System Milestone Schedule
8.0 Acquisition Plan or Strategy
9.0 System Development Plan
10.0 Element Facilities Requirements
11.0 Track to Prior Card
12.0 Contractor Cost Data Reporting Plan
27
Definition and Planning
Ground Rules & Assumptions
• State the conditions which must take place
in order for the estimate to be valid
• Ground rules and assumptions must be
documented since changes in these areas
provide an audit trail for changes in the cost
estimate.
28
Data Collection and Analysis
• Collection and analysis represent a significant
amount of the overall estimating task in terms of
time. The analysis will include decisions on what
programs to include in the data set to whether to
truncate lot data on a program for which you are
calculating a learning curve.
• Document data in your analysis, and any
assumptions you make
29
Data Collection and Analysis
• The direction we take in collecting historical data will
be determined by our choice of estimating
methodologies.
• This step may also dictate a change in estimating
approach due to the availability or non-availability of
certain data.
• Data collection is not limited to cost data. We must
also collect technical and program data if we want the
total picture of the historical systems. This will help us
ensure the comparability of the systems that we are
collecting data on with the system we are estimating.
30
Data Collection and Analysis
Most Difficult Task in Cost Estimating
• Data Sources
– Data Types: Cost/Resource, Technical, Program
– Categories: Primary, Secondary
• Data Problems
– Wrong Format – Matching up – Definition
– Temporal Factors - comparability
• Normalization
• Data Location
31
Army Tools for
Total Ownership Cost Estimating
Life Cycle Cost Management Tools
APPN ACEIT PRICE SEER ACDB AMCOS OSMIS SBC/ISR CO$TAT
RDT&E X X X X X X
PROC X X X X X X
MILCON X X X X X
MILPERS X X X X X
O&M X X X X X X X
32
Definition and Planning
Select the Estimating Approach
• Techniques available
– Analogy
– Parametric
– Engineering
– Extrapolation
– Expert Opinion
Select the technique that is most applicable
to a specific WBS element
33
Definition and Planning
Estimating Methods
• Analogy
– Basic Comparison
– Factors
• Parametric
– Regression Analysis
• Engineering
– Detailed
• Expert Opinion
– Committee
– Delphi 34
Life Cycle Cost Estimates
Concept Technology System Development Production & Operations
Refinement Development & Demonstration Deployment & Support
Disposal
A B C D
Cost Estimating Model
x Parametric x Parametric x Parametric x Parametric 0 Parametric
y Engineering y Engineering y Engineering y Engineering y Engineering
0 Actuals 0 Actuals z Actuals z Actuals z Actuals
• Cost estimates based on confidence intervals
• Parametric analysis based on similar systems and similar attributes (regression)
• Engineering data based on reliability projections used for bottoms-up estimate
• Actual system costs used to extrapolate future system costs
• Cost estimate revised every two years after production
• Weights associated with non-actuals decrease as system matures
• MS B is a true hard stop for systems
35
Cost Estimating Methods
Analogy Method
• Based on direct comparison with historical
information of similar existing activities,
systems, or components.
• Compares new system with one or more
existing similar systems where there is
accurate cost and technical data.
• Analyst must show validity of comparison.
36
Cost Estimating Methods
Analogy Method
• Based on known costs of a similar program
• Adjustments for complexity, technical, physical
• Strengths
– Based on representative experience
– Less time consuming than others
– Can be used as a check on other techniques
• Weaknesses
– Small sample size
– Heavy reliance on judgment
– Sometimes difficult to identify analogy and
associated costs
37
Analogy Estimating with Factors
Cost(New) = Cost(Old) x Adjustment Factor
Element Old Sys1 Old Sys2 Old Sys3 New Sys
Airframe $500/lb $250/lb $750/lb 1.25*S1
Engine 2M/Unit 3M/Unit 5M/Unit .8*S3
Avionics $3K/lb $2K/lb $4K/lb 1.0*S2
Payload 6M/Unit 8M/Unit 7M/Unit .65*S1
38
Cost Estimating Methods
Parametric Method
• Known as Statistical Method or Top Down
Method
• Relates cost to physical attributes or performance
characteristics
• Uses database of elements from similar systems
• Uses multiple systems
• Most beneficial in earlier stages of the system or
project life cycle
39
Cost Estimating Methods
Parametric Method
• Statistical relationships between cost and
physical or performance parameters of
past systems.
• Strengths
– Captures major portion of cost
– Quick what if type estimates
• Weaknesses
– Less detailed
– Getting accurate data
40
Cost Estimating Methods
Parametric Method
(Extrapolation)
• Use historical values to establish a trend for the
future.
• Example problem: Given the actual productivity
and labor rates in the given table. How much will it
take to complete a 3-year software development project
of 10K lines of code, if 50% is completed in the second
year and 25% is completed in first and third years?
41
Cost Estimating Methods
Engineering Method
• Known as bottom up method
• Requires extensive knowledge of system
characteristics
• Divide into segments; estimate costs for each
segment
• Combine segments plus integration cost
• Uses a combination of cost estimating methods
• Detailed knowledge of new technologies may not
be available.
42
Cost Estimating Methods
Engineering Method
• Strengths
– Detailed
• Best when long stable production process
• Weaknesses
– Requires a lot of time
– Cost
– Cannot be used until system well defined
43
Cost Estimating Methods
Expert Opinion Method
• Subjective judgment of an experienced
individual or group
• Use if time does not permit a more thorough
analysis
• Document source(s) of opinion of experts
• List attributes of the source(s)
Example: Delphi Technique
44
Cost Estimating Methods
Expert Opinion Method
• Consulting with one or more experts who
use their knowledge and experience to
arrive at an estimate
• Group techniques include
– Consensus (Committee)
– Delphi
• Strengths and weaknesses
45
Expert Opinion Method
Delphi Technique
• Query expert opinion from group
• Seek information from each expert
• Summarize the results
• Send report to each expert
• Gather second opinion after each individual
reviews report
• Summarize results
• Iterative process continues until the experts reach
a consensus, or near-consensus.
46
Expert Opinion Method Example
Hours % of Total %*rate
Labor type Hourly Rate
Needed Hrs
Senior
Engineer
1000 $13 10.5 $1.37
Design
Engineer
3000 $11 31.6 $3.48
Tool & Die 500 $11 5.3 $.58
Machinist
5000 $9 52.6 $4.73
Totals 9500 $10.16
47
Learning Curve Theory
As the quantity of a product produced
doubles, the man-hours- per-unit
expended to produce the product
decreases at a fixed rate or constant
percentage (usually 10% to 15%).
48
Learning Curve Theory
Factors Contributing to Efficiency
• Job familiarization by both production workers and supervisory
personnel.
• Changes in product design which do not materially affect the product,
but result in increased ease and speed of production.
• Changes in tooling, machinery, and equipment which simplify or
speed up the production process.
• Improved production planning and scheduling, and improvements in
production techniques and operational methods.
• Improvements in shop organization, engineering coordination and
liaison.
• Improvements in the handling and flow of materials, and in the
materials and parts supply systems
49
Learning Curve Theory
The table is based on the assumption that the first unit required 100
person-hours to produce. The table indicates a constant rate of
reduction of 20% for each doubling of the unit number; the value of
the second and each succeeding item in the table is 80% of the value
of the preceding item.
TABLE FOR FIGURES
F-1-1 and F-1-2
Unit No. Unit Person-hours
1 100.00
2 80.00
4 64.00
8 51.20
16 40.96
32 32.77
64 26.21 50
Learning Curve Theory
80% Unit Curve on Arithmetic Paper
51
Learning Curve Theory
1000
Unit
Cost
(LOG)
100
90%
85%
80%
10
70%
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Production Unit Number
(LOG)
52
Learning Curve Theory
Uses
– Evaluating contract production costs.
– Assessing impact of production interruptions,
product changes and production rate change.
– Rate of improvement experienced by a particular
contractor on a prior product may be indicative of
rate of improvement expected on new product of
similar size, complexity, and construction.
– Improvement curve pattern experienced in the
production of past item can be extended to calculate
costs of future items.
53
Estimate Formulation
• We have defined our tasks, planned the estimate,
assigned cost responsibilities, and performed data
collection and analysis.
• Here we apply our estimating methodologies and
tools: develop the factors, analogies, CERs, and
learning curves.
• We will aggregate the various cost elements into
development, production, and O&S estimates,
fiscally spread the costs, and apply inflation.
54
Cost Estimating Methods
Laying Out the Estimating Approach
Aircraft System – sum of level II elements (cross-check with analogy)
Air Vehicle – sum of level III elements
Airframe – CERs
Air Vehicle Software – Expert Opinion
Propulsion – CERs
Avionics – Analogy
Armament – Catalog Price
System Eng/Program Mgt – Factor of Air Vehicle
System Test & Evaluation – Factor of Air Vehicle
Training – Factor of Air Vehicle
Data – Factor of Air Vehicle
Peculiar Support Equipment – Factor of Air Vehicle
Initial Spares – Factor of Air Vehicle
55
Review and Presentation
• We want to ensure that the estimate is
reasonable, realistic, and complete.
• Reasonableness addresses areas such as:
using appropriate and acceptable
methodologies; presenting methodologies
systematically; the use of relevant data; and
ensuring that assumptions are valid and
clearly stated.
56
Review and Presentation
(Continued)
• The realism test checks to see if the
assumptions and ground rules are consistent
with the statement of work and if the costs
are in line with historical data.
• We evaluate completeness by determining
whether the estimate includes all the work
stated in the request for proposal and
whether the costs are traceable and
reconcilable.
57
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Risk Analysis Approaches
• Detailed Network & Stochastic
• Discrete Technical, Schedule, and Estimating Risks
Effort
• Detailed Monte Carlo Simulation (each WBS)
• Bottom Line Monte Carlo Simulation
• Add a Risk Factor/Percentage
Detail
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
WBS Cost Distribution
Probability Distributions Total Cost
Frequency
PDF
P.E.
Sum PE MLC (Mode)
+
=
CDF
P.E. Confidence 50%
+
20%
P.E. Sum PE MLC
+ Many More
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Probability Density Function
Forecast: Results=
Cell B28 Frequency Chart 4,978 Trials Shown
.0 2 4 117
.0 1 8 8 7 .7
.0 1 2 5 8 .5
.0 0 6 2 9 .2
M e a n = $ 2 ,1 9 8
.0 0 0 0
$ 1 ,2 5 0 $ 1 ,7 5 0 $ 2 ,2 5 0 $ 2 ,7 5 0 $ 3 ,2 5 0
Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Cumulative Distribution Functions
Forecast: Results=
Cell B28 Cumulative Chart 4,977 Trials Shown
.995 49 77
.747
.498
.249
.000 0
$1 ,25 0 $1 ,75 0 $2 ,25 0 $2 ,75 0 $3 ,25 0
Reasons for Risk
Technical Programmatic Cost Schedule
Physical Material Sensitivity to Degree of
Properties Availability Assumptions Concurrency
Material Skill Sensitivity to Sensitivity to
properties Requirement Technical Risk Technical Risk
Software Environmental Sensitivity to Sensitivity to
Complexity Impact Programmatic Programmatic
Risk Risk
Integration Contractors Sensitivity to Number of
Interface Stability Schedule Risk Critical Path
Requirement Funding Profile Estimating Estimating
Changes Errors Errors
Operational Political
Environment Advocacy
62
Cost Schedule Curve
Fixed Cost
Technology Outdate
Parallel Effort
More ECP
Life Cycle Cost
Less Mature Design
Typical
Min Optimal
Development Schedule
63
Development Schedule
Mean Cycle Time to IOC
DoD
Pre-1992 Starts 132 months (11 years)
Post-1992 Starts 89 months (7.4 years) on-going
F-22 216 months (18 years) IOC 2004
Comanche 264 months (22 years) IOC 2006
Commercial
Boeing 777 54 months (4.5 Years)
64
Schedule Goals
Commercial Drivers
• Technology Drives Schedule
• Constraint Schedule
• Goal is ROI Maximization
Defense
Cost
Commercial DoD Drivers
• Funding Drives Schedule
• Unconstrained Schedule
• Goal is Cost Reduction
Development Schedule
65
DoD Program Schedule Drivers
Funding Allocation
Cost
Acquisition Process
Program Execution
Cycle Time Reduction Goal
Development Schedule
66
Final Documentation
• Provide the means for other analysts to get the
same results that we have in our cost estimate.
• Providing good directions and a clear trail to
follow are essential in having an estimate that can
be replicated.
• Provide step-by-step documentation of the
methodologies, supporting data, ground rules, and
assumptions, equations, examples, etc.,
• Ability to interpret or evaluate someone else’s cost
documentation is as important as ability to prepare
good cost documentation.
67
Life Cycle Management Changes
Current State
ICD
Multiple bill payer
Defined, Refined, Program for drills to offset
& Fairly Accurate Equipment actual costs
S&T RDT&E
Initial M Revised M Revised M
Procurement OPA SR
Cost S Cost S Cost S
R
Disposal
Estimate A Estimate B Estimate C
Construction MCA
Personnel MPA
Training O&S
Program for
Operations OMA/MPA Cost
O&S Costs
Support Only compete procurement costs against Army Estimate
Investment Strategy over the EPP. Impact of
sustainment on Army program ignored. Develop SSP
Unbalanced process that emphasizes procurement over sustainment: Large unplanned costs
Future State
ICD/DOTMLPF Change Request Periodic
Develop Supportability Tri-Chairs of WSR
DASC Program for Cost
A B C D
Sustainability Plan
Disposal SSO LSO
Cost Estimating Model
OO Rep
II Rep
MM Rep
Equipment Estimate
G-3
Requirements
PAE Rep TT
TT Rep
S&T RDT&E Initial M Revised M Revised
SR
Procurement OPA Cost S Cost S Cost R
Disposal
A B FOC
Construction MCA Estimate Estimate Estimate
Personnel MPA Capabilities Based
Plan for Programming
Training Sustainment Resource Providers
Integrated Capability (IC)
Prioritizers Capability Providers II MM OO DASC M1 DASC M2 DASC MTV … S* T*
Operations OMA Compete total cost Core Teams
UEx
UEy
x
x
POM for
TOC x
C4ISR Signal Bde x
BFSB x
against Army TOA
MI Bde x
FCS x
Support Sustainment
HVY X X x
G1/G3/G8/G4
MED x
BCT SBCT x
LT x
Sust UA (UEx) X
Sustainment
extended over EPP.
Sust UA (UEy) x
HVY x
Fires UA LT x
UEy x
HVY x
AVN UA MED x
LT x
AEB x
MUA x
Maneuver Engineer Bde x
MP Bde x
Other x
MACOM
68
Balanced process that considers investment and sustainment: Informed decision makers
CAIV Process
• Set realistic but aggressive cost objectives
early in acquisition program
• Manage risks
• Track progress using appropriate metrics
• Motivate Government and industry
managers to achieve program objectives
• Incorporate incentives to reduce O&S costs
for fielded systems
69
Cost As An Independent Variable
(CAIV)
• Best time to reduce cost is early in the
process.
• Involves the stakeholders in the process.
• Cost tradeoffs must be addressed early in
the acquisition process and embedded in
program requirement documents, Request
For Proposals (RFPs), contract provisions,
and source selection process.
70
Cost Analysis Domain
Inputs (Descriptions) Process (Models) Outputs (Costs)
Requirements ASARC
Acquisition Assumptions CAIG, DAB
Cost Analysis Process APB
Design Parameters Databases, Tools, & Models PPBES
Risk Assessment AOA
Types of Cost Studies
Studies Should be Known Unknown Class
Cost Estimating Descriptions, Models Costs Analysis
Current
Capability
Description, Historical
CER Development Models Synthesis
Costs
Needed Descriptions ( Design and
Capability
CAIV Cost Goals, Models Control
Performance Parameters)
Performance Based and Design Based Cost Models Currently do not Exist
71
Analysis of Alternatives
• Set realistic, aggressive cost objectives early
in development
• Manage risks
• Track progress with appropriate metrics
• Motivate government/industry managers
to achieve program objectives
• Incorporate incentives to reduce O&S costs
for fielded systems.
72
Cost
Analysis
Art or
Science?
73