• About
          • About - ARDAK's legacy and SIGNIFICANT differentiator, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Competitive Intelligence Tool Comprises of Modules that can be licensed to meet your unique needs

    • Partners and Affiliations
          • Partners & Affiliations - ARDAK has been an active member in the GovCon / Aerospace and Defense (A&D) Industry for 35 + years

    • Rate Derivation (RD) Methodology
          • RD Indirect Rate Methodology - ARDAK’s Wrap Rate Methodology was used to develop the most sophisticated Wrap Rate Intellectual Property (IP) in the industry.  While emulated by our competitors ONLY ARDAK has 35 + years of continuous Wrap Rate IP enhancements, and every analyst has a minimum of 20 years’ experience using ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Summary
          • RD Summary - A TOP DOWN estimates of the Wrap Rate Derivation (multiple of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A, without regard to Fee or Material Handling costs) are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD HIGH Level Decomposition
          • RD HIGH Level Decomposition - A TOP DOWN HIGH Level Wrap Rate Decomposition consisting of the estimated Fringe, Overhead and G&A for both plant and site operations are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD LOW Level Decomposition
          • RD LOW Level Decomposition - A BOTTOM Up LOW Level Wrap Rate Decomposition consisting of 23 DESCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead and G&A and Relative Competitiveness (High, Low, Mean, Standard Deviation) to the Market Sector at the element level are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD LOW Level ELEMENT Descriptions
          • RD LOW Level ELEMENT Descriptions - 23 DISCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A are defined and normalized within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Price To Win (PTW) Trending
          • RD Price To Win Trending - Proprietary PTW algorithms are applied to 23 DISCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A for each procurement class developed (Priority, Must Win, and Strategic) PWIN Rates are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD PREDICTIVE Rate Derivations
          • RD PREDICTIVE Summary - Several Wrap Rate Predictive Models including UNPOPULATED JV’s, Notional, Pro Forma, and other custom modifications to a competitor's cost basis are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Competitor Target Acquisition
          • RD Competitor Target Acquisition - Utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Target Acquisition Functionality, ARDAK will validate or suggest the Competitor Cost Center target that has the lowest Wrap Rate, domain expertise, and Customer past performance deemed to be the most Significant Competitive Threat

    • RD's and ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)
          • RD's and ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) - Widely Recognized as the GOLD STANDARD, and the “Standard & Poor’s” of Indirect / Wrap Rate Analysis with in the A&D Industry

    • Market Based Affordability (MBA)
          • Market Based Affordability (MBA) - Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) was utilized for dozens of MBA Analyses relative to specific Market Sectors for the largest A&D Contractors in the world

    • Service Centric PTW
          • Service Centric PTW - Service Centric PTW Opportunities are those that involve very little or no material, custom solution, or platform development, and are predominately labor based and utilizes ARDAK's RATE TO WIN (RTW) Models

    • Platform / Solution Centric PTW
          • Platform / Solution Centric - Platform / Solution Centric PTW opportunities are those that involve a customized solution such as a weapon system and typically leverages one or more of ARDAK’s Proprietary Cost Models

    • EMMARS PTW Use Case
          • EMMARS PTW Use Case - See an example of  a Platform / Solution based PTW utilizing ARDAK's Proprietary Cost Models

    • Portfolio Analysis
          • Portfolio Analysis - Validate, Optimize, Expand, Realign, and Develop a Go To Market Strategy utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Market Analysis
          • Market Analysis - Staying on top of changing markets requires Competitive Intelligence. By utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Market Analysis is your basis for making sound decisions about where to utilize your resources now and in the future

    • Market Based Affordability (MBA)
          • Market Based Affordability (MBA) - Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) was utilized for dozens of MBA Analyses relative to specific Market Sectors for the largest A&D Contractors in the world

    • Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A’s)
          • Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A's) - ARDAK has supported $Billions of M&A's including candidate Identification, Review, Screening, Market Participation, Customer Base, and Programs utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Competitor Assessment
          • Competitive Assessments – A deep utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) delivering Competitive Posture, Recent Wins & Losses, Operating Segments, Financial Performance, M&A's, Reliance on Government & Commercial Business, Leading Customers, Products & Services, Contracts, and Contract Types

    • Agency Analysis
          • Agency Analysis A deep utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) providing significant visibility into Agency's Leading Competitors, Products & Services, Contracts, and Contract Types

    • Rate Derivation (RD) RD Summary
          • RD Summary - A TOP DOWN estimates of the Wrap Rate Derivation (multiple of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A, without regard to Fee or Material Handling costs) are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Direct Labor (DL) Rate Analysis
          • Direct Labor (DL) Rate Category and Analysis – Thousands of LCATs by Title, Description, Years of Experience, Educational, Clearance Requirements, and Geographic Location are stored and maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Material Handling (MH) Analysis
          • Material Handling (MH) Analysis –An assessment of the competitor’s Material & Handling by burdening policy (Value Added, Fixed Costs, Direct Material, Other Material, etc.) and estimated burden rate are stored and maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Fee Analysis
          • Fee Analysis – Scrubbed contract actions stored in ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) are analyzed to estimate a competitor’s Fee structure.  The operating margin is calculated and a comparative analysis is then performed to validate the Fee which is then stored in ACES

    • A&D Cost Models
          • A&D Cost Models - ARDAK maintains dozens of proprietary cost models relative to specific sectors such Fixed Wing, Rotary Win, Limited Initial Rate Production (LRIP), Full Rate Production (FPR), and Full Life Cycle Costs

    • Government Agencies ($100B+ PTW WINS)
          • Government Agencies – Price To Win (PTW) Past Performance by Government Agency ALL utilized ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Use Cases
          • Use Cases - Price To Win (PTW) Past Performance by Use Case ALL utilized ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

  • News & Insights
  • Contact Us
WW Humble Supporters

EMMARS Predecessor – ACS Price To Win Use Case

ARDAK conducted “Bottom Up” Analysis for Two Competitor Teams (Raytheon SAS & Boeing ASW&ISR). The following outlines the significant components of the PTW analysis:

  • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Hardware/Platform
  • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Cost Strategy
  • Estimate Non-Recurring and Recurring costs to include:
    • Airframe modifications
    • Software and Reuse
    • Communications
    • Systems Engineering
    • Mission Systems
    • Live Fire Tests
  • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Teammates’ Workshares
  • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Software New Development/Reuse
  • Identify each Team’s Projected Individual and Composite Wrap Rates
  • Identify the Competitor Team’s Most Likely Price to Win
  • Sensor Integration
  • Systems Test
  • Self Protection
  • Training
  • Sensor Processing Equipment

ACS SDD Bottoms Up Analysis Methodology

  • Analyze Potential Platforms
    • Source – ACS IBOP SDD Specs, Jane’s Information Group, Gulfstream, Bombardier, Airborne Stand-Off Radar System (ASTOR), and Israeli Air Force Shavit Specifications
    • Methodology – Bottom Up Platform Specific Pragmatic Fact-Based PTW Similarity Analysis
      • Built upon historical platform and program experience (BAMS, Korea’s EX Program, IROSS, AMF JTRS, BMC2, MMA, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, Big Safari, Cobra Ball, and others)
      • Utilizes ARDAK’s Fixed Wing PTW Cost Model and Variants (Continually Enhanced)
  • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Cost Strategy
    • Source – FY09 ACS PEDS, FY09 thru FY13 and Resource Allocation Estimates for FY14 and FY15, Competitor Historical Contract Awards, Competitive Assessments, and ARDAK’s ACES Proprietary PTW Trending Model
    • Methodology – Analyze ACS Budget and Prime Contractor’s Bid Strategy History
  • Estimate Airframe Modification Costs
    • Source – ACS IBOP SDD Specs, Jane’s Information Group, Gulfstream, Bombardier, and ARDAK’s Fixed Wing PTW Cost Model
    • Methodology – Bottom Up Platform Specific Pragmatic Fact-Based Similarity Analysis
      • Built upon historical platform and program experience (BAMS, Korea’s EX Program, IROSS, AMF JTRS, BMC2, MMA, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, Big Safari, Cobra Ball, and others)
      • Modify for GFE and Directed Procurements
      • Estimate Non-Recurring and Recurring costs
      • Populate ARDAK’s Air Force Fixed Wing PTW Cost Model
      • Calculate Deltas
  • Analyze Candidate Radars
    • Source – ACS IBOP SDD Specs, Jane’s Information Group, SAS, ASTAR, Northrop Grumman, and ARDAK’s Air and Ground Station Systems Cost Models
    • Methodology – Bottom Up Platform Specific Pragmatic Fact-Based Similarity Analysis versus Draft ACS SDD Requirements/Specifications
  • Revise Top Down Most Likely Teammates’ Workshares
    • Source – Phase I Work Allocation Estimates and Bombardier Work Share Minimized
    • Methodology – Bottom Up PTW Aggregation
      • Revise Work Allocation For Each Subcontractor
  • Estimate each Team’s Recurring/Non recurring costs
    • Source
      • ACS IBOP SDD Specs, Jane’s Information Group, SAS, ASTAR, and Northrop Grumman
      • ARDAK’s Average Team Labor Rates, Team Workshare ACES PTW wrap rates, and Air Force Fixed Wing Cost Model
    • Methodology – Bottom Up Platform Specific Pragmatic Fact-Based Similarity Analysis
      • Built upon historical platform and program experience (BAMS, Korea’s EX Program, IROSS, AMF JTRS, BMC2, MMA, JSTARS, Rivet Joint, Big Safari, Cobra Ball, and others)
      • Modify for GFE and Directed Procurements
      • Populate ARDAK’s Air Force Fixed Wing PTW Cost Model
    • Calculate each Team’s Most Likely Bid Price
      • Source – Phase I and Phase II PTW Subtasks
      • Methodology – Summation of Component Costs
    • Identify each Team’s Most Likely Software New Development/Reuse
      • Source – ACS IBOP SDD and CONOPS Specs
      • Methodology – Source Lines of Code (SLOC)
        • Derive functionality from CONOPS
        • Modified by Complexity Factors
      • Competitor Team’s Most Likely PTW
        • Summation NRE and Recurring over six years
        • Comparison to AF Fixed Wing Model dollars
        • Comparison to Maximum Available ACS SDD contract dollars
        • Comparison to Top Down Analysis

ACS Budget Analysis

  • Initial FY14 and FY15 ACS “Budget Request” Estimated based upon historical program fiscal spreads of last two program years
  • Budget Analysis Update based on Draft ACS SOO SDD contract funding profile
  • Management Reserve
    • No PMO Management Reserve
      • Omnibus DoD Reprogramming Activity with Army O&M Funding Reprogrammed from Navy and AF Appropriations (RDT&E, Procurement and O&M)
      • Execution Reviews Criticized ACS for being Behind in Fund Obligations
  • GFE Cost is Assumed not to come out of the ACS budget but funded out of the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) with supplemental additional funding from Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)
  • Period of Performance of some 72 months (Award Apr 09 Delivery 5 Systems Mar 15) with some T&M to support Government IOT&E
  • Analysis based upon meeting Threshold requirements only
  • Prime Contractor Flexibility Limited to Selecting Existing Airframe and Existing Radar
  • GFE Content is Technically and Fiscally Significant
  • Directed Procurement Content is also Significant
  • Consequently Technical Differentiation is Limited
  • Source Selection Will be Focused on Integration Effort
  • Manpower Cost (Wrap Rates) are likely to Drive the Outcome
  • Maximum Available Funding from Draft SOO for ACS Increment 1 SDD Contract $1,615.9K or 0.2% more than previous analysis ($1,612,457)
  • There is an anomaly in the SOO data with the amount jumping from $207M to $330M or a 60% increase between Fy13 and Fy14.
  • Assumptions
    • Seta/PMO FY09 Expenses are as reflected in FY09 Presidents Budget Request FY09 through FY13 minus the Draft SOO SDD Contract Funding
    • No PMO Management Reserve
    • T&M CLIN included in Draft SOO SDD Contract Funding
    • Fee included in Maximum Available Funding ($1,615.9K)
    • Note FY14 contractor funding appears to be a “plugged” number
  • ACS Program Component Sourcing

ACS Raytheon SAS Estimated Cost Strategy

  • SAS will Bid Priority Wrap Rates with all their subs at Site Rates except Bombardier which will be a Plant Rate
    • Don’t confuse winning with execution
    • Expect Fto see rate creep as more work is actually performed at Plant Rates
  • SAS understands their Wrap Rates are greater than the Boeing Team and Must Decrease cost
    • Minimize Bombardier Work Share
      • Decrease overall Team Wrap Rate
      • Increases Bombardier political acceptance
  • Trade on ASTOR Credentials (Same Team as ACS)
    • Accomplished Radar Adaptation to BD700
    • Large Percentage of Software Reuse
    • Successful BD700 ASTOR System Integration
    • Mission Currently Flying
    • Lower Integration Hours
    • Successful ASTOR Team Reduces
      • Cost
      • Risk
  • SAS Team’s Program Office
  • Program Office Claims
    • This team has accomplished ASTOR
    • Do not need as Many High Paid Program Office personnel
  • SAS Team’s Work Allocation
    • Bombardier Airframe vended to SAS and included in SAS’ Allocation
    • SAS Work Share percentage is summation of material and labor divided by ACS SDD increment 1 total burdened cost
    • Harris contributes Fiber Optic “cabling”, SAR processing, Radar support and Communications support
    • BAE Systems contributes to SIGINT Processing, Training/Documentation and Avionics support
    • Bombardier performs A/C Modifications
    • Team Mate labor work share burdened by ACES Plant or Site PTW Wrap Rates
    • Team Mate work location bid out of SAS’ site in El Segundo, CA
  • SAS Team’s NON Recurring Costs
    • SAS Non-Recurring Costs impacted by the addition of Harris Fiber Cabling
    • Specific Tasks Assigned to Each Team Member and then summed up over the non-recurring two year period changes the initial Phase I work share
    • Given the multiplicity of Army Program Offices a personnel “Tax” was applied to take into account all of the Army “hand holding” and coordination required by this procurement method

ARDAK’s Airframe Cost Model

  • SAS Team’s Recurring Costs Assumptions
    • Assume Conservative 90% Learning Curve
    • GFE is truly Government Supplied
    • Expect to see major ACS program restatements (Cost Growth) as GFE does not meet schedule
  • SAS Team’s Works Share by Functional Segment
    • Total ACS SDD Increment One by Dollars and Percentage

ACS Software Development and Reuse

  • Introduction
    • Various techniques were considered for software cost estimation including Source Lines of Code (SLOC), Functions (Function Points), and Objects.
    • SLOC was selected because of its history in the industry and the amount of actual data available.
  • Methodology
  • Used Source Lines of Code (SLOC) estimates based on functionality derived from CONOPS document.
  • SLOC estimates based on functional similarity modified by complexity factors.
    • AWACS RSIP
    • JSTARS
    • RIVET JOINT
    • TAWS
    • GUARDRAIL
  • Actual projected cost was determined
    • Initially factored by acquisition approach
    • Then factored by Boeing’s and SAS’ predicted acquisition approach response
  • Assumptions
    • Industry average 2.5 SLOC per hour assuming:
      • SLOC – One line of clean, simple, correct, well-documented code
      • CMMI 5 Level development environment utilizing “Agile Software Development Methodology”
    • SLOC per hour includes Systems Engineering, Development, Test and Integration. Formal documentation not included.
    • Reuse code costs 1/3 of new development
  • Example (Standard Approach)
    • User System Interface SLOC estimate 110,000
    • Burdened labor cost calculated as industry average DL cost factored by ACES Systems Integrator average plant rate
    • $43.20 Per SLOC
    • $4,752,000 USI SW New Development Cost
  • Example (Acquisition Approach)
    • Customer believes that they will get significant reuse
    • Reuse factor set at 50% for the USI
    • $28.80 Per SLOC
    • Resulting in $3,168,000 as estimated USI cost
    • Example (Acquisition Approach)
  • Example (SAS Estimate)
    • SAS estimate of SW development effort will be in line with the “standard” estimate.
    • SAS’ experience with the DCGS will increase their reuse estimate.
    • Burdened labor rate calculated based on industry average SW development DL rate factored by team wrap rate
    • Resulting in $2,217,600 as estimated USI cost for the SAS Team
  • Utilizing the methodology put forth in the example, the following estimates were made for the entire SW development effort:
  • Software NEW Development and Reuse SAS Estimate
    • Leverage DGCS experience
    • Leverage DGCS Integration Backbone (DIB)
    • Leverage “Mission Systems Integration” experience
  • Summary
    • SW Reuse 23% New 77% Reuse

ACS Raytheon SAS Team Most Likely PTW