• 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

PREDICTIVE Rate Derivations (RD)’s

Aircraft Manufacture COE

Utilizing ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation System (ACES), ARDAK developed contract analysis targeting an Aircraft Manufacturer / Integrator recent realignment into various Centers of Excellence (COE’s). By analyzing the Aircraft Manufacturer’s Annual Reports and 10K’s, ARDAK validated FFP versus CP contract percentages for each Aircraft Manufacturer / Integrator’s Cost Centers identified below:

  1. Aircraft Manufacturer Co. A (Location A)
  2. Aircraft Integration Co. A (Location C)
  3. Aircraft Integration Co. A (Location D)
Contract Actions Summary Table 1024x177 1
Contract Actions Summary Table

By analyzing the contracts in ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation Systems (ACES), ARDAK developed an independent, bottoms up analysis of the contract types, and specifically FFP versus CP. ARDAK then developed a contract type analysis for the Aircraft Manufacturer / Integrator and associated COE’s delineating relative dollars and percentages of FFP and CP contract types that establishes a baseline for subsequent predictive wrap rate analysis.

Aircraft Manufacturer Co A Location A
Aircraft Manufacturer Co A
Aircreft Integration Co A Location C
Aircraft Integration Co A
Aircraft Services Co A Location D
Aircraft Services Co A

ARDAK developed a set of baseline or “cost basis” wrap rates to establish a baseline for subsequent analysis. Baseline wrap rates have been developed for the following cost centers:

  1. Aircraft Manufacturer Co. A, Location A
  2. Aircraft Integration Co. A, Location C
  3. Aircraft Manufacturer Co. B, Cost Center A
Aircraft Integration Co A Loc C 1
Aircraft Integration Co A
Aircraft Manufacture Co A Loc A
Aircraft Manufacture Co A
Aircraft Manufacture Co B Loc A
Aircraft Manufacture Co B

Notional Wrap Rate Development

ARDAK derived a notional wrap rate (adding $1.9B to the contract base) wrap rate multiple (multiple of G&A, overhead, and fringe, without regard to fee or material handling costs) for both plant and site work.

The hypothetical analysis was predicated on an increase in contract base and the resultant potential decrease in cost. The cost decrease was calculated by determining what percentage of fixed cost could be decreased through spreading of the cost through an increased base. This decrease was then checked to insure that the decreased rate would then result in similar raw dollars being delivered to the business unit.

Hypothetical Award Effect on the Aircraft Manufacturer / Integrator’s Cost Center Profitability

Utilizing ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation System (ACES), ARDAK analyzed the Aircraft Manufacturer / Integrator’s contract types to predict the effect of a $1.9B annual increase in business base on potential cost center profitability.

  • Aircraft Manufacturer Co. A, Location A is currently performing an average of $73M a year in fixed price efforts. A 15.8% reduction in cost basis would result in an additional “profit” of approximately $11.5M per year.
  • Aircraft Integration Co. A, Location C is currently performing an average of $343M a year in fixed price efforts. A 13.8% reduction in cost basis would result in an additional “profit” of approximately $47.4M per year.

Comparative Occupancy Rate Analysis

ARDAK has provided a basis of estimate for the comparative occupancy wrap rate impact for Northrop, given the Palmdale contract base determinations herein this study, to clarify relative cost differences between fabrication, manufacturing, and assembly work conducted within a facility leased from the Government on Government owned property like the buildings at Edwards AFB, versus conducting the same work at a commercially leased facility or company owned facility in Palmdale (or comparably adjacent region of California such as El Segundo, CA).

The discrete component elements of occupancy cost considerations comprising the Occupancy Factor utilized within the analysis for each of the three different scenarios are; Rent, Real Estate Taxes, Personal Property Taxes, Insurance, Depreciation, Amortization, Maintenance, Utilities, Security, and IT Infrastructure cost.

The Rent factor was estimated by performing research on commercial and industrial property listings for lease or for sale in the Palmdale area. These estimated rental costs are utilized within the Government Owned Contractor Operated Facility and the Contractor Leased Facility scenarios. Estimated mortgage cost was utilized within the Contractor Owned Facility scenario.

The Real Estate Taxes and Personal Property Taxes factor is based on the General Tax percentage and any special voter-approved taxes for the Palmdale area. For the Government Owned Contractor Operated Facility scenario, the Real Estate Tax was not applied, as Property owned by the government is exempt from property tax.

The Insurance factor, representing premium expenses for the building and its contents, is comprised by estimated premium costs for an All Risk Policy, including earthquake, flood, boiler and machinery, providing the following specific categories of coverage: 1.) Real and Personal Property 2.) Business Interruption-Gross Earnings 3.) Business Interruption-Loss of Profits 4.) Extra Expense 5.) Accounts Receivable 6.) Leasehold Interest 7.) Rental Value and Rental Income 8.) Royalties 9.) Transit. This factor was applied consistently within all three scenarios.

The Depreciation and Amortization factor was applied within each scenario, proportionately to Plant Property and Equipment information available in the Aircraft Manufacture 10-K. Depreciation and Amortization is increased within the Contractor Owned Facility scenario, due to increased property ownership.

The Maintenance factor considerations include custodial functions, building maintenance, parking and paving costs, and environmental, health and safety costs. This factor was applied consistently within all three scenarios.

The Utilities factor was estimated based upon the average utility costs for similar type facilities of similar size. This factor was applied consistently within all three scenarios.

The Security factor provides for increased Security costs within both the Commercially Leased and Contractor Owned Facility scenarios, as government-provided security reduces the cost of this factor within the Government Owned Contractor Operated Facility scenario.

The IT Infrastructure factor represents cost considerations of Hardware, Software, Labor, and Downtime expenses. This factor was applied consistently within all three scenarios.

Vectrus / Vertex Merger Predictive Analysis

ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation System (ACE)S open architecture facilitates using the financial basis from one competitor’s cost center as the baseline while leveraging the contract actions from another cost center. This approach coupled with sophisticated algorithms provides for a number of Predictive Wrap Rate Models including JV’s, Notional, Pro Forma, and other modifications to a competitors cost basis.  The PREDICTIVE Wrap Rate on the right was developed PRIOR to the Vectrus/Vectrus merger.