Support Vehicles and Equipment
Cost Element Estimating Guide
Cost Element (CE): Support Vehicles and Equipment
Typical CES #: 4.6 Support Equipment
Appropriations: PMC [In SVLCCM as “Support PMC”]
1. Cost Element Definition/Content. (CEW Section A). Refers to the cost for equipment
needed to support or maintain the System not included in the End Item Procurement (EIP)
(and Average Unit Cost (AUC)). This includes common and peculiar equipment that is
specifically required to support the System. The following summarizes those items that are
associated with the Budget Activities (BAs) that comprise this cost element:
• BA1. -- Includes ammunition for small arms, artillery, rockets (non-guided), mortars,
tank and anti-tank weapons, explosives, fuses and primers. It may include training
ammunition procured with PMC funds when procured concurrent with the initial
stockage requirement, rather than on a periodic basis. (Otherwise, Training
Ammunition should be addressed as CES #5.1.5.)
• BA2. -- Includes tanks, artillery, small arms weapons, tracked landing vehicles, other
tracked vehicles and supporting items.
• BA3. -- Includes missiles with guidance systems wire or remote.
• BA4. -- Includes radios, telephones, radars, ADP equipment, and other electronic
• BA5. -- Includes commercial passenger vehicles, commercial cargo vehicles, tactical
vehicles (trucks, vans, trailers), and items not provided for under BA2.
• BA6. -- Includes engineering and construction equipment, generators, material
handling equipment, and other equipment not included in budget activities 1-5.
Generally, this cost element is to be avoided in regards to the SVLCCM. The SVLCCM will
generate O&S phase costs in the MPMC and RPMC appropriations based on the assigned BA
and certain embedded factors. Due to the current Decision Cost Estimating policy wherein only
incremental costs are depicted and the unlikely impact on the personnel appropriations, the
analyst should not use this cost element directly. Since most Support Vehicles and Equipment
items may be characterized as GFE, it is preferred to address the costs under CES # 4.3.
2. Estimating Methodologies. (CEW Section B). The following presents a summary of
considerations when applying the estimating methodologies appropriate for this cost
a. Expert Opinion. When data are insufficient for higher accuracy methodologies, a
review of the available programmatic documentation and conversations with various
functional specialists within a program office may lead to the identification of Subject
Matter Experts (SMEs). The Systems Engineer (SE) and the APM/L staff supporting
the Project Officer (PO) should be able to provide referrals to appropriate SMEs on
either the system or the cost element (as it relates to the system). There are SMEs
capable of providing a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimate. The analyst shall
identify the sources and their qualifications along with their estimated values, and
discuss any analytical techniques used to resolve differences among the experts’
b. Analogous. The analyst may query POs to identify similar End Items that may be
appropriate for applying analogous costs. Data from analogous systems may be used
from previously fielded systems where formal Life Cycle Cost Estimates (LCCEs) or
Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEAs) have been completed and
c. Parametric. No appropriate Cost Estimating Relationships (CERs) have been
identified or approved for use regarding this cost element. An estimate may be
derived using CERs, once they have been identified (or formulated), are confirmed to
be statistically valid, and their development sufficiently understood to ensure proper
application. Parametric approaches are typically a linear formula with empirically
derived factors and constants.
d. Engineering (Bottom-Up). The analyst may derive an estimate of such costs by
breaking the whole cost element into smaller components (or modules). Then after
estimating the cost of the components, they may be summed to provide a total cost.
3. Assumptions. (CEW Section C). No typical assumptions have been identified for this cost
4. Fiscal Year Spread and Phasing Considerations. (CEW Sections D&E). The fiscal year
spread of the Support Vehicles and Equipment costs should be based on the Project’s
delivery schedule. Occasionally, the Support Vehicles and Equipment may be delayed from
the basic System’s schedule, if it is not needed for integration until later in the production
process. Conversely, certain Support Vehicles and Equipment may be considered as Long
Lead Items (LLI) to ensure that production of the System is not delayed.
5. Cross-Checks. (CEW Section F). Typically, this section of the CEW is used to show any
additional estimate values calculated by either using other methodologies or optional data
6. Risk/Uncertainty. (CEW Section G). No typical risk/uncertainty factors have been
identified for this cost element.
7. Reference/Points of Contact.
a. MARCORSYSCOM, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PAE) Directorate.
8. Additional Considerations and Supporting Information. The analyst should consider the
following points when developing the estimate for this cost element and documenting that
estimate on the corresponding CEW:
a. The characteristics of the particular End Item being estimated may dictate additional
system-specific considerations which the analyst should address using professional
9. Examples from Previous Cost Estimates. The examples have been enclosed as samples for
quick reference. Noteworthy examples of previously approved Life Cycle Cost Estimates
(LCCEs) which addressed this cost element are listed for the convenience of the analyst.
They appear here in the same format in which they exist in the official documents. The
examples may not follow the current standard format, but they are the best illustration of
how this cost element was estimated in another LCCE. If the analyst needs one of the
examples not enclosed, a copy can be obtained from MARCORSYSCOM, Program
Analysis and Evaluation Directorate (PAE).
a. Air Defense Communications Platform (ADCP) LCCE; dated April 1997.
b. Ground Mobile Forces (GMF) Tri-Band Satellite Communications Terminal LCCE:
dated September 1995. (Enclosed.).
Cost Estimating Worksheet
Program Name: Air Defense Communications Platform
CES #: 4.11 CES Title: Support Vehicles and Equipment
A. Cost Element Definition/Contents: Includes the cost of the HMMWVs and ECUs. Also
includes ADCP workstation replacement at years 5 and 10 of the ADCP life cycle.
B. Detailed Basis of Estimate:
This cost element consist of procuring 23 more HMMWVs, 56 ECUs, and technology
refreshment of the ADPE Subsystem at the 5- and 10-year service points.
The 23 HMMWVs will round out the total requirement after the first 35 previously purchased
HMMWVs have been integrated into the first ADCPs delivered. At a unit cost of $66,367 [PM
SSC], the 23 HMMWVs will cost $1,526,441.
The 56 remaining ECUs will be purchased separately and provided to NSWC-CD as GFE for
integration into the ADCPs as required. The price includes FOB Delivery to Crane, IN. At a
unit cost of $5,500 [PM SSC], the 56 ECUs will cost $308,000. The BMDO will fund
approximately $55,000 for ECUs to support the 10 remaining TBMD variants.
The reprocurement of all 58 ADPE Subsystems twice in the 15 year service life at a unit cost of
$110,213 [CEW #4.1] yields a cost of $12,784,708 ($2,645,112 TBMD related and
$10,139,596 SHORAD related).
Therefore, the total Support Vehicle and Equipment cost is estimated at $14,619,149 (=
$1,526,441 + $308,000 + $12,784,708).
1. The HMMWVs and ECUs will be purchased one year prior to the corresponding
ADCP to ensure availability for integration. ADPE will be treated similarly.
2. GFE requirements prior to FY99 will be funded by BMDO. All requirements in FY99
and subsequent years will be funded by the Marine Corps (and are currently
3. Workstations will be replaced at the original equipment price (based on the
niche-pricing philosophy prevalent within the high technology industry) with
appropriate systems then currently available.
D. Fiscal Year Spread: (FY97$ x 000s) Funding split between BMDO and USMC.
Variants: FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02
TBMD 33 22 882
SHORAD __ __ 72 199 862 _647
Total: 33 22 72 199 862 1,529
Variants: FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08
TBMD 441 881 441
SHORAD ___ 1,433 1,323 1,322 _992 ___
Total: 441 1,433 1,323 1,322 1,873 441
Variants: FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Total
SHORAD 1,432 1,323 1,322 992 11,919
Total: 1,432 1,323 1,322 922 14,619
E. Rationale for FY Phasing: Consistent (i.e., one year prior) with the delivery profile as
Variants: FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 Total
TBMD 8 4 12
SHORAD __ __ 13 12 12 9 46
Total: 8 4 13 12 12 9 58
F. Cross-Checks Performed and Results:
H. Other Comments:
Cost Estimating Worksheet
Program Name: GMF Tri-Band Satellite Communications Terminal
CES #: CES Title: Support Vehicles and Equipment
A. Cost Element Definition/Contents: Includes the cost of the HMMWV being purchased
separately and provided to the integration contractor. Also includes replacement of
workstations at years 5 and 10 in the 15 year life cycle.
B. Detailed Basis of Estimate: Projected HMMWV deliveries at $60,000 per vehicle yield:
(FY95CB$ x 000s)
HMMWV Qty (36) (36)
HMMWV Cost 2,160 2,160
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Repl Qty (11) (13) (13) (6)
Repl Cost 256 303 303 140
FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Total
Repl Qty (11) (11) (13) (6) (86)
Repl Cost 256 303 303 140 2,004
1. Seven (7) HMMWVs are already purchased and in storage at Albany awaiting
shipment. Cost of $60,000 per vehicle for remaining quantity to be procured is based
on HMMWV Project Office estimate for renogotiated HMMWV Contract.
2. Workstations would be replaced at the original equipment price. U.S. PM Army
SATCOM Marine Corps LCCE Hardware Unit Cost Worksheets list 2 terminal
workstations per GMF system at $12,000 each. Conversion to FY95CB$ yields
workstation replacement cost of $23,000.
D. Fiscal Year Spread: As shown in Detailed Basis of Estimate.
E. Rationale for FY Phasing: Consistent with fielding schedule.
F. Cross-Checks Performed and Results:
H. Other Comments:
1. Based on US Army PM SATCOM Marine Corps LCCE dated 6/12/95 updated for
subsequent changes in Marine Corps quantities/configuration.