Transcript Data for Costing Mort Anvari Director, Acquisition Costing (SAFM-CEA)

Data for Costing
Data for Parametric Costing
Mort Anvari
Director, Acquisition Costing
(SAFM-CEA)
2008 Cost Research Workshop
Acquisition Cost and Earned Value Reports:
Data Quality Issue
May 22, 2008
Key Points
Data
 Recognize the DCARC Data Collection Enforcement through Defense
Acquisition Executive Summary (DAES) and the Success in Collecting Data
for Costing at DCARC, Services, and PMs.
 We have Several Data Quality Issues and Potential for Type I (α) and II (β)
Errors in our Cost Estimating.
 Examples include: STRYKER, FCS, and GFEBS.
 Opportunity for Cost Analysis Enterprise Resource Planning (CA-ERP)
and Data for Costing Architecture.
Need Data for Costing:
Future Technologies; Processes; Performances; Products; Services; Personnel; and Schedule.
2
May 22, 2008
Army DAES Group A CSDR Issues & Actions
May 2008
Program
ATIRCM/CMWS
FMTV
Patriot PAC-3
Missile Segment
Data
Status Issues (as of May 7, 2008) Actions (as of May 21, 2008)
G
G
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G
N/A
N/A
JLENS
Y
UH-60M
Y
LUH
Y
CH-47F
R
1. DASG60-98-C-0001, plan A-04-I-C1-S2 R; 1. Report will be resubmitted by June 7, 2008.
Preliminary Design Review cost report
submitted May 7, 2008 was rejected.
1. W58RGZ-08-C-0003, plans A-06-A-C1-S1,A- 1. WBS dictionary for plan A-06-A-C1-S1 was
06-A-C1 S2 and A-06-A-C1S3 WBS
submitted on May 20, 2008. WBS dictionaries for
dictionaries, due February 29, 2008, has not
plans A-06-A-C1 S2 and A-06-A-C1S3 are
been received.
complete but contractor is having uploading
difficulties on the DCARC website and is working
with DCARC to resolve.
1. W58RGZ-06-C-0194, plan A-07-C-C1; initial 1. Report was resubmitted on April 21, 2008.
report, resubmission 2, was rejected on March DCARC is reviewing.
20, 2008.
1. W58RGQ-04-G-0023: Subcontractors not 1. Cost reporting was not place on contract for
providing CSDR for Lots 3 & 4.
Lots 3&4. PM and Contractor legal offices are
reviewing.
2. W58RGQ-04-G-0023; plan A-05-E-C1: Lot 2. The Contractor cannot resubmit the reports
3 completion reports resubmittal, due
until the PM has formally reject the initial Lot 3
December 10, 2008 have not been submitted. completion reports. The PM will submit the
rejection letter to the Contractor by May 23, 2008.
3. W58RGZ-04-C-0012; plan A-05-E-C2(R1):
CWBS dictionary, due January, has not been
submitted.
3
Patriot MEADS
CAP Fire Unit
R
1. No CSDR plans have been received for the
Surveillance Radar.
3. The CWBS dictionary cannot be submitted
until the New Build CSDR Plan is approved. The
Program Office is waiting for Boeing feedback on
the Plan before they submit it for final approval.
1. Army PEO M&S has requested a waiver from
CSDR reporting. Decision package is at OSD for
consideration.
May 22, 2008
DAES Status Army Programs
Data
6
11
11
DAES Status as of May 2008.
Green:
No or minor open compliance issues.
Yellow : Unresolved minor open compliance issues.
.
Red: Any major issue. CSDR requirements not included on contracts.
Unaddressed previously identified compliance issues.
4
May 22, 2008
Available Data for Costing
Data
 Cost and Software Data Reports (CSDRs)
 Cost Performance Report (CPR)
 Automated Cost Databases (ACDB) from CSDRs and CPRs
 Contractor Logistic Support (CLS) Database
 Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) Database
 Army Operating and Support Management Information System
(OSMIS)
 Army Capability Knowledge Base (CKB)
 Additional data sources include:
 Army Cost Positions (ACP) Database ACE-IT Sessions; SAR;
DAES; WSR; APB; P/R-Forms; and Contract Summaries.
5
May 22, 2008
Data for Cost Estimating
Data
Data
 Historical Data:
 Cost and (Physical, Technical, Performance,
Capability, Schedule).
Information
Knowledge
Cost Models
 Subject System Data:
 Physical, Technical, Performance, Capability,
Schedule.
Performance
Cost
Schedule
Estimates are only as good as the data that they are based on.
6
May 22, 2008
Data Issues
Data
 Current Data Reporting and Usage Issues (CSDR
and CPR).
CCDR, SRDR,
 Examples include: Stryker, FCS, and GFEBS (lack of clean data / no data).
 Family or System of Systems
 LSI, JV, Prime, Sub
 CPIF, FFP,. . Reporting Requirements
 Manufacturing, Services, SW, and ERP
 Mod, ECP, and Incremental Contracts
 Competition and Business Base Issues
 Physical, Technical, TRL, Performance

(Commonality Issue)
(Contracting Issue)
(Contract Type Issue)
(Activity Type Issue)
(Completeness Issue)
(Quantity issue)
(Technology Issue)
KPP and Capability Data Issue
Allocation Issue: Mapping to Standard Reports
Labor – Material
Direct – Indirect
Recurring – Non-Recurring
7
May 22, 2008
Data Quality Challenges
Data
 Lack of data.
 Physical, technical, performance, capability.
 S/W ERP FFP Contract.
 ACAT II and below programs.
 Policies and procedures.
 DoDI 5000-2 dated May 2003.
 Requires SRDR but not CSDR for some programs.
 Vague in some areas; CSDR “not required for procurement of commercial systems, or
for non-commercial systems bought under competitively awarded, firm fixed-price
contracts, as long as competitive conditions continue to exist”.
 Army regulations do not require cost reporting.
 Data collection process.
 Existing data is not readily available to the Cost Analysts; sometimes they
are not even aware that data exists. (Data in Jail)
 Contractors required to map CSDR reports IAW DoD MIL-HDBK-881.
8
May 22, 2008
Data Collection Process
Contractor
Data / Reports: R
3
Contractor
1
Contractor 2
Contractor
Accountin
g Systems:
S2
Contractor3
S9 S7 S1
S8
S6
S3
S4
S5
S10
R11
R10
R18
R14
R17
R8 R12 R5 R7
R1 R16
R2
R4
R13 R15
R9
R6
Contractor Allocation
Data
Labor vs. Material
Direct vs. Indirect
Rec. vs. Non Rec.
Unique vs. Common
Contractor allocation
Contracting
G1
G2
Data
Quality?
G3
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING PLAN
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204 Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1a. PROGRAM
2a. WEAPON SYSTEM TYPE
3. SUBMISSION TYPE
6b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
7. WBS
4. DATE AS OF (MM/DD/YY)
5. REPORT DATE (MM/DD/YY)
X INITIAL SUBMISSION
A
1b. MILESTONE
BX
C: LRIP
C: PROD
6. POINT OF CONTACT (POC) INFORMATION
CHANGE
8. PREPARING ORGANIZATION
X PROGRAM
a. POC AND ADDRESS (Include ZIP Code)
6c. FAX NUMBER
CONTRACT
6d. E-MAIL ADDRESS:
10.
WBS ELEMENT CODE
a. PROGRAM b. CONTRACT
Process vs. Quality.
11.
WBS
REPORTING ELEMENTS
12.
CONTRACTOR
(DUNS Code)
13.
CONTRACT
NUMBER
a. DD 1921
REQUIRED
9. REVIEW AND REFERENCE NUMBER
14. REPORT FREQUENCY
b. DD 1921-1 (Part 1) c. DD 1921-1 (Part 2)
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
d. DD 2630
REQUIRED
CSDR
DD FORM 2794, Oct 2003
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
 Process affects data quality.
 Increases probability for data errors.
 Results in mapping / allocation inconsistencies.
9
May 22, 2008
Data Collection Process
Data
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
COST AND SOFTWARE DATA REPORTING PLAN
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for
Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204 Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to
comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1a. PROGRAM
2a. WEAPON SYSTEM TYPE
3. SUBMISSION TYPE
6b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
7. WBS
4. DATE AS OF (MM/DD/YY)
5. REPORT DATE (MM/DD/YY)
X INITIAL SUBMISSION
1b. MILESTONE
A
BX
C: LRIP
C: PROD
6. POINT OF CONTACT (POC) INFORMATION
Contractor
Data Input
Form
Contractor
Database
CHANGE
8. PREPARING ORGANIZATION
X PROGRAM
a. POC AND ADDRESS (Include ZIP Code)
6c. FAX NUMBER
Contractor
Allocation
CONTRACT
6d. E-MAIL ADDRESS:
10.
WBS ELEMENT CODE
a. PROGRAM b. CONTRACT
11.
WBS
REPORTING ELEMENTS
12.
CONTRACTOR
(DUNS Code)
13.
CONTRACT
NUMBER
a. DD 1921
REQUIRED
DCARC
Database
9. REVIEW AND REFERENCE NUMBER
14. REPORT FREQUENCY
b. DD 1921-1 (Part 1) c. DD 1921-1 (Part 2)
REQUIRED
REQUIRED
d. DD 2630
REQUIRED
CSDR
DD FORM 2794, Oct 2003
Army CES
Allocation
ACDB
Database
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
Contractor
Accounting System
DCARC /
DoD MIL-HDBK-881
ACDB /
Army CES
Sys1
HDBK Element1
CES Element1
Sys2
HDBK Element2
CES Element2
Sys3
HDBK Element3
CES Element3
…
…
…
Current Data Collection Process.
 Contractor’s map data for CSDR reports to IAW DoD MIL-HDBK-881.
 CSDR data is then mapped into Army ACDB IAW Army Cost Element Structure
(CES).
10
May 22, 2008
Automated Cost Database (ACDB)
Data
Army Automated Cost Database (ACDB)
DCARC Database
Collect Data
of Historical
Programs
Normalize /
Standardize Data
Input Data into
ACDB Database
Structure
Cost Methodology Development
Query ACDB for
Cost and
Technical Data
Relate Technical
and Program
Parameters to Cost
Perform
Regression
Analysis
Develop Cost
Models
as appropriate
ACDB.
 Contractor data mapped twice.
11
May 22, 2008
FOUO
STRYKER
Engineering Support Vehicle (ESV)
Data
$500,000
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
DO2-ESV_(22)
DO10-ESV_(10)
$250,000
DO19-ESV_(10)
DO21-ESV_(10)
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
ic
al
Eq
ui
pm
en
t
N
av
ig
at
io
C
n
om
m
u
In
ni
te
ca
gr
tio
at
ns
io
n,
As
sm
,T
es
t
al
Sp
ec
i
al
,
io
ar
,B
N
uc
le
Au
to
m
at
ic
/
lo
gi
c
R
em
at
ot
ic
e
C
he
m
Pi
lo
tin
g
Lo
ad
in
g
/C
ab
Bo
dy
Au
to
m
Au
to
m
ot
iv
Tu
e
rre
tA
ss
em
bl
y
Fi
re
C
on
tro
l
Ar
m
am
en
t
Tr
ai
n
Au
xi
lia
ry
g
/D
riv
e
te
er
in
/S
on
Pa
ck
ag
e
Po
w
er
H
ul
Su
sp
en
si
l/
St
ru
ct
ur
e
$0
 Unit cost should not increase over time; suggests no learning.
12
May 22, 2008
FOUO
FOUO
STRYKER
Data
Hull/Structure
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
6) 1) 2) 6) 7) 2) 1) 7) (8) (4) 0) 6) 6) 7) 2) 0) 4) 5) 4) 0) 1) 4) 0) 8) 1) 6) 7) 0) 5) 9)
16 _(5 _(5 _(6 _(2 _(2 _(4 _(2 S_ V_ (12 _(3 _(3 _(5 _(1 _(1 _(1 _(1 (13 _(4 _(5 _(1 _(1 _(1 (13 (11 _(2 _(1 _(2 _(1
(
C M RV SV SV CV EV V_
C RV SV SV EV V_ V_ SV SV CV EV
C M RV SV SV CV EV G
R V_
V_
IC 2 M TG 2- -F -E 2- -M 3-M BC -IC 0-M ATG 10- 0-F 0-E 10- -M -IC 9-M 19- 9-F 9-E -M -IC 1-R 1-F 1-E 21- -M
N
1
1
2 O
0
9
1
0
9
1
2- O 2-A DO O2 O2 DO
O D
5- O1 DO 10- DO O1 O1 DO O1 O1 DO DO O1 O1 O1 O2 O2 O2 O2 DO O2
O D O
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O
D
D
D
D
D
D
 Hull / Structure thought to be common but data does not support commonality.
 Percentage of common parts for all HW WBS elements range from 11- 39%.
13
May 22, 2008
FOUO
FOUO
STRYKER
Data
Hull / Structure
Unit Cost by Variant
Unit Cost by Variant
Full Vehicle
Lot Numbe r
Lot Number
DO #2
DO #10
DO #19
DO #2
DO #21
Suspension / Steering
DO #10
DO #19
DO #21
Unit Cost by Variant
Unit Cost by Variant
Power Package / Drive Train
Lot Numbe r
Lot Numbe r
DO #2
DO #10
DO #19
DO #2
DO #21
DO #10
DO #19
DO #21
 Large variation in the unit costs for delivery orders 2, 10, 19, and 21.
14
May 22, 2008
FOUO
STRYKER
Data
 TACOM review of Stryker CSDR.
 Large variations in platform material costs across delivery orders.
 Data suggested no learning.
 Many HW elements %'s differ greatly between RDTE and Procurement.; Ex:
ICV; RDTE Hull/Structure ~9% of total HW cost; procurement ~37%.
 Some cost elements were not in the category an analyst would expect; Ex:
Tech pubs; operator manuals DO#17 and tech manuals DO#12.
 Contractor’s accounting system collects data by delivery order.
 Contractor MI-HDBK-881reporting level did not provide insight into unique
vs. common. (11-39% common)
 To conform to MI-HDBK-881 contractor allocated labor and some material
costs.
15
May 22, 2008
STRYKER
Data
HULL/FRAME
STRUCTURE
Type #1
Type #2
Type #3
ACCOM FOR SUBSYS
X
X
X
$M
x
x
x
$M
x
x
x
$M
$M
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
DO 16
DO 15
DO 14
DO 13
DO 12
MGS
NBCRV
Delivery Order
ATGM
MEV
ESV
FSV
CV
MC
RV
ICV
Goes on Variant
Sub C
Sub B
Sub A
WBS/CES Description
Prime
Subs
X
X
X
Shows commonality for variants.
Commonality across all Stryker variants.
Notional Resource
Distribution Table (RDT).
 CSDRs provide no insight into common versus unique.
 Contractor collects data by delivery order and allocates labor and some material
costs.
16
May 22, 2008
Future Combat Systems – FCS
Data
Prime Contractor
Typical Program
Sub-Contractors
Sub Sub-Contractors
Boeing &
SAIC
FCS
Prime Contractors (Lead
System Integrators (LSI)
Sub-Contractors
Sub Sub-Contractors
FCS Family of Systems (Systems of Systems Approach).
 Common development may be included in LSI data.
 Examples include: SE/PM; data; etc.
 Common versus unique.
 Subcontractors have functional responsibilities across multiple platforms.
17
May 22, 2008
FCS
Data
Lead System Integrated
(LSI)
Tier I
ANS
MGVs
Subsystems
Subsystems
UAV
MULE UGV
Ground Sensor
Integrated
Computers
UGS
Aerial Sensor
Subsystems
Subsystems
Subsystems
Subsystems
Subsystems
Tier II
Mule UGV Functional Responsibility.
 Tier I systems with functional responsibilities for MULE UGV:
 LSI, Integrated Computers, Ground Sensor, and ANS.
18
May 22, 2008
FCS Software SLOC
Data
FCS includes 14 Integrated Weapon
Systems and the Network
•
These Systems & Network could be a
Separate Major Software Development
Effort/Program
System of Systems Software
Microsoft
Windows Vista: 50
Current FCS SLOC
97.6 M
SLOC on the Rise.
Requirements too?
19
Total kSLOC
C4ISR
41,672.2
System of Systems Common
Operating Environment
(SOSCOE)
29,866.0
NSIV
1,070.7
IS&T
7,889.7
MGV
3,649.0
Logistics
1,337.3
Training
2,201.1
UAV
658.2
UGV
9,245.8
Total FCS
97,590.1
May 22, 2008
Cost Data Flow
Data
Contractor
Sys1
Contractor
Sys2
ACDB
Contractor
Sys3
OSMIS
Contractor
Sys4
CLS
Contractor Cost
Accounting Systems
Government Informational
Systems / Databases
Cost
Analysts
Current Information Access Flow.
 Need for Data Warehousing.
 Repository of electronically stored data.
 Several databases typically supply data to the warehouse.
 Improved ease of data retrieval and data quality.
20
May 22, 2008
Data Warehousing
Data
External
Data
Contractor Cost
Accounting Systems
Data
Information
Delivery System
Warehouse
Data Marts
Government Informational
Systems / Databases
External
Users
Proposed Information Access Flow.
 Raw Data loaded directly from contractor accounting system into data
warehouse.
 Metadata: ‘Data about Data’.
 Data visualization / data warehousing / intelligent data mining.
 Global definitions that can be referenced by many different databases.
21
May 22, 2008
Cost Analysis ERP
Data
 Potential for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) of Cost Analysis
Data and Models across the DoD.
 Enable data and information sharing.
 Allow automation and integration of business processes.
 Data for Costing – Vision:
 Collect raw data with more flexibility and focus on metadata development
– XML.
 Data warehousing of raw and current data.
 Acquiring data mining and search tools to assist data analysis.
Cost Analysts need to be more involved in the process.
Why Data ERP for Costing? Check out http://www.anvari.net/E_Proc_Model.htm
22
May 22, 2008