Implementing Will-Cost & Should-Cost Management

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Advertisements

Roadmap for Sourcing Decision Review Board (DRB)
Governor’s Center for Efficient Government. Mission The mission of the Governor's Center for Efficient Government is to promote fair and transparent best.
Closeout (Preparing for the End)
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
TARGET AFFORDABILITY AND CONTROL COST GROWTH David G. Ahern Portfolio Systems Acquisition Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition) April.
1 Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) Overview July 2013 NAVY CEVM.
1 PBL Panel Discussion F-22 System Program Office F-22 System Program Office F-22 System Program Director 13 January 2015.
PPA 502 – Program Evaluation Lecture 10 – Maximizing the Use of Evaluation Results.
Time and Cost Estimation
What are MRLs ? Alfred W. Clark Dawnbreaker, Inc.
© 2010 Plexent – All rights reserved. 1 Change –The addition, modification or removal of approved, supported or baselined CIs Request for Change –Record.
U.S. Army Materiel Command | Army Sustainment Command U.S. Army Sustainment Command FORSCOM CDR’s Conference DOL Transition Update 2 OCT 2012 COL Dan Reilly.
Cost 101 for Life Cycle Logisticians R&D Cost: program costs primarily associated with the development of a new or improved capability to the point where.
PROJECT RISK MANAGEMENT Presentation by: Jennifer Freeman & Carlee Rosenblatt
Lecture 31. Chapter 8 Budgetary Planning and Control.
1 Earned Value Management (EVM) Center ‘Moving Forward’ Presented by Mr. David Kester Director, Program Integration Division April 25, 2007.
I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Headquarters U.S. Air Force Implementing Will-Cost & Should-Cost Management Presented by Rebecca.
1 WARFIGHTER SUPPORT STEWARDSHIP EXCELLENCE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT WARFIGHTER-FOCUSED, GLOBALLY RESPONSIVE, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE SUPPLY CHAIN LEADERSHIP.
0 PM Metrics Briefing COL Stephen L. Rust PM ITTS 25 Mar 04.
1 Total Ownership Cost (TOC) and Cost as an Independent Variable (CAIV) Dr. Jeffrey Beach Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division; Survivability,
1 Alternative EVM Applications Not a One-Size-Fits-All.
Maricopa Priorities Update Spring Agenda Overview Strategic Directions Implementation process Categorized Recommendations Preliminary Timeline.
Stuart A. Hazlett Deputy Director, OUSD(AT&L) Defense Pricing Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy A Presentation to NCMA Pentagon 8 September 2011.
2 William P. McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets August 4, 2008 NCMA Conference.
Policies and procedures for developing acquisition plans; determining whether to use commercial or Government resources; whether it is more economical.
Office of Management and Budget NDIA Program Management Systems Committee May 3, 2005 EVMS Compliance Requirements David Muzio.
Mr. Shawn R. Hawkins O DUSD - Acquisition Reform 27 April 99 Government/Industry Partnership Packaging Example CIVIL MILITARY INTEGRATION.
1 1 Nunn-McCurdy Legislation/Program Impacts Della McPhail Chief Financial Officer 308 ARSW DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution.
Earned Value Management Update Nancy L. Spruill Director, Acquisition Resources and Analysis Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology.
0 17 Nov 2010, V2.1 Bill Parker Director for Acquisition & Program management Better Buying Power: Guidance for Obtaining Greater Efficiency and Productivity.
Alpha Contracting Sole Source Negotiations between Government and Industry (13 CFR (c)(2))
1 Global Design Effort: Controls & LLRF Controls & LLRF Working Group: Tuesday Session (29 May 07) John Carwardine Kay Rehlich.
1 NASA Office of Procurement NASA Procurement Tenets April 15, 2008 SMC Brief Bill McNally Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
Unit – I Presentation. Unit – 1 (Introduction to Software Project management) Definition:-  Software project management is the art and science of planning.
ILC 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Planning Damping Rings Activities in the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski Cockcroft Institute/University of Liverpool.
SHOULD COSTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 2 Breakout Session #: A14 Name: James Gill Date: July 30, 2012 Time:11:15.
1. 2 Cost & Price Analysis Breakout Session # 312 Beverly Arviso, CPA, Fellow, CPCM, CFCM, Arviso, Inc. Melanie Burgess, CPA, CFCM, Burgess Consulting,
Roland Gilbert BSc MRICS; Prince 2 Practitioner
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Acquisition Support New Horizons Consulting Services, LLC’s, premier business unit is an offering of a full range of services and support for acquisition.
MORS Special Meeting: Risk, Trade Space, & Analytics for Acquisition
Comparison of Major Contract Types
DoD Template for Application of TLCSM and PBL
T45 Contractor Logistics Support
DSCC Initiatives DSCC Supplier Conference
Schedule Margin July 2013 NAVY CEVM
Chapter 3: Cost Estimation Techniques
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Reconstruction site Investigation, Planning, Scheduling, Estimating and Design Eng. Fahmi Tarazi.
Comparison of Major Contract Types
12.2 Conduct Procurements The process of obtaining seller responses, selecting a seller and awarding the contract The team applies selection criteria.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
ISA 201 Intermediate Information Systems Acquisition
Budget I want to plan a project by determining how much money
Online Aerospace Supplier Information System (OASIS) Pilot Program Update Craig Bennett DCMA HQ May2018.
Comparison of Major Contract Types
General Services Department
1915(i)& (k) Implementation Update
Schedule Margin July 2013 NAVY CEVM
MER and Decommissioning
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Schedule Margin July 2013 NAVY CEVM
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Comparison of Major Contract Types
Second Avenue Subway Project Execution Strategy
Certified Cost or Pricing Data vs
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Comparison of Major Contract Types
General Services Department State Purchasing Division
Presentation transcript:

Implementing Will-Cost & Should-Cost Management Presented by Rebecca L. Davies, SES Director, AF PM&AE Ranae Woods, SL, Technical Director, AFCAA February 16, 2011

Leadership Direction and Thoughts Adopt Will- and Should-Cost management - use historically informed independent estimation (will-cost estimates) to inform managing of programs to cost objectives (should-cost estimates) Managers should be driving productivity into their program - need to scrutinize every element of program cost Use will-cost estimate to support budgeting and programming Reasonable extrapolations from history Represents business-as-usual management To interrupt cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy to will-cost estimate, program manager must bring forward a should-cost estimate Justify every element Show how it is improving year by year or meeting other benchmarks for value Applies to ACAT I, II, and III programs

Leadership Direction and Thoughts - (continued) Metric for success - few percent per year of programs/ contracts executing below budget Industry can succeed in this environment Tie performance to higher profit Affordable programs won’t face cancellation

Will-Cost and Should-Cost Management - Defined Two separate cost estimates A non-advocate will-cost estimate for budgeting and programming A program manager should-cost estimate for program management execution

Will-Cost Estimate Definition The budget baseline will be based on a non-advocate will-cost estimate. Aims to provide sufficient resources to execute the program under normal conditions, encountering average levels of technical, schedule, and programmatic risk (usually no less than 50% confidence level). Supports the budget and ensures sufficient funding to provide confidence that: 1) the program can be completed without the need for significant adjustment to program budgets, and 2) the program can avoid Nunn-McCurdy or critical change breaches. Prepared by an office or entity operating outside the program office chain of command. Use for all acquisition, budget, and program execution decisions (e.g. source-selection, contract negotiations, IBRs, major reviews, PMB monitoring, annual budget/programming). Air Force: ACAT I process well-defined, ACAT II and III requires attention

Should-Cost Definition “Program-Level Should Cost Estimate” - not just the immediate contract! Who owns? Program office develops, owns, reports & tracks the program-level should cost estimate. Program manager (PM) recommends to MDA (AT&L/CAE) for approval. When required? All milestone decisions or other decisions going before OUSD(AT&L) and CAE; annual updates/progress reporting. Which programs? ACAT I, II and III Intent: A DoD internal management tool used to incentivize performance to targets. Based on realistic technical and schedule baselines and assumes success-oriented outcomes from implementation of efficiencies, lessons learned, and best practices. Designed to drive productivity improvements in our programs and will incorporate results of contract direct and indirect cost reviews (See FAR 15.407-4 and DFARS 215-407-4 should-cost reviews) when they are conducted.

Should-Cost Definition - (continued) Various approaches, but three recommended: Use will-cost estimate as the base and apply discrete, measurable items and/or specific initiatives for savings against that base Use bottoms-up approach (different methods from will-cost estimate) without a detailed FAR/DFARS should-cost review and include actionable content to achieve cost below the will-cost estimate Use bottoms-up approach (different methods from will-cost estimate) with a detailed FAR/DFARS should-cost review and include actionable content to achieve cost below the will-cost estimate Should-Cost initiatives will be categorized as: Near-term (within the program manager’s tenure) and long-term initiatives Program driven (within program manager’s control), “Service Driven (within the services control),” or “Externally Driven (outside service control)”

Should-Cost Definition - (continued) Broad challenges by management to reduce cost through straight reductions by a specified percentage or dollar value against the will-cost estimate are not valid should-cost estimates. Estimates are expected to have specific actionable content associated with reductions. Most items outside the control of the program office and inconsistent with the current program of record are outside excursions and not appropriate for the should-cost estimate. Example: economic production rates Anything requiring significant investment for completion and an increase to the budget is outside the scope of the should-cost estimate and should be shown separately for consideration.

Should-Cost Definition - (continued) PMs should consider: Seeking assistance from outside organizations (e.g., the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency, DCMA, SAF/AQC) as they develop should-cost estimate Close collaboration with appropriate center level functional organizations Will-cost estimate excursions from the non-advocate organization and all previously defined should-cost estimates

Will-Cost/Should-Cost Will / Should Cost Analysis Supporting Evidence for Should Cost: Production rates economical and historically stable Shorten program timeline Complete R&D effort in FY16 vs. FY17 as currently planned in ICE Potential production rate increase Strong negotiation positions Historical cost, learning curve, and understanding of production efficiencies Long-term supplier agreements Parametric model MOA established with contractor for key routine functions/costs Open system architecture design eases future enhancements Aggressive “Breakout” IPT established for appropriate technical data packages (TDP) and data rights

Service Driven Savings External Driven Savings Another Potential Template Title: Cost Savings Assessments By System (BY10$M) System 1 System 2 System 3 System X Potential Savings $xxxM ($yy/unit) Adjusted Learning $0M ($0M/unit) $xxM -Cost improvement reasonable (no adjustment made) Forecast using historical learning /rate curves -Forecast Labor at historical improvement curve levels -Forecast material costs at composite level with 95% rate curve Touch learning reasonable (not adjusted) Forecast material costs at composite level w/ 95% rate curve Historical learning applied to Sustain Eng. Process lmprovement -Eliminate redundant work -Move work to more efficient facility -Reduce SEPM staff based on history -Acquire new sources for widgets A, B, and C -Implement cost reduction initiatives Contracting -Eliminate proposal prep with priced options Sync buys w/ other customers Reduce proposal activity Reduce flight test activity -Negotiate lower Material Handling and Flight test support Account for concurrent buys with other customers Other -DCMA use new rate projection methods -Not assessed Accelerate Buys -Increase buy rate, shortens program and amortizes fixed costs over more units per lot -Increase buy rate, shortens program amortizing fixed costs over more units per lot SPO Driven Savings Service Driven Savings External Driven Savings

System 1 Should-Cost Avg Unit Price to Govt

BACKUP

When Required? Air Force Event Will-Cost estimates (Initial / Update) Program Should-Cost estimates Indirect/Direct Contract Cost Reviews MS A Initial N/A Yearly Updates Update MS B (Initial setting of Budget Baseline for Nunn-McCurdy metrics) Update (Sets Internal Program Execution Baseline) Initial to Support Contract Actions (Optional) Optional MS C Decision / LRIP 1 Contract Award Refer to recommendations IAW FAR 15.407-4 -- Should-cost Review and DFARS 215.407-4  Should-cost  FRP (FDDR) Decision / Contract Award Refer to recommendations IAW FAR 15.407-4 -- Should-cost Review and DFARS 215.407-4  Should-cost  review. In addition, consider for the following program events: Critical Design Review First LRIP award out of option contracts Interim Contractor Support and Contractor Logistic Support first contract awards - Organic Logistics Infrastructure (e.g., depot stand-up, DLA, ALC)