ARDAK conducted “Bottom Up” Analysis for Two Competitor Teams (SAS & Boeing ASW&ISR). The following outlines the significant components of the 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
  • Sensor Integration
  • Systems Test
  • Self Protection
  • Training
  • Sensor Processing Equipment
  • 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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Air Force Fixed Wing Cost Model
    • Calculate each Team’s Most Likely Bid Price
      • Source – Phase I and Phase II 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
  • 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
  • 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

ACS 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 indicated Plant or Site 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 ARDAK 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 SAS Team Most Likely PTW

Menu