Ground Mobile Forces GMF Tri Band Satellite Communications Terminal LCCE

Document Sample
Ground Mobile Forces GMF Tri Band Satellite Communications Terminal LCCE Powered By Docstoc
					Previous Section

                                              Tab 12

                                Support Vehicles and Equipment

                                 Cost Element Estimating Guide

Cost Element (CE):        Support Vehicles and Equipment
Typical CES #:            4.6 Support Equipment
Phases:                   Investment
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).

C.      Assumptions:

        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
        TBMD                                                 2,700
        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:

G.   Risk/Uncertainty:

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)

                                FY98     Total
         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

C.   Assumptions:

     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:

G.   Risk/Uncertainty:

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.

Next Section

Shared By: