Defense Cost and Resource Center The Defense Cost and Resource Center: An Update Ronald Lile 40 th DoDCAS February 2007
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Defense Cost and Resource Center
The Defense Cost and Resource Center:
An Update
Ronald Lile40th DoDCASFebruary 2007
2
We need good data reporting!!
Acquisition Executives need to make decisions based on “actual” experience
3
Primary Objective:Ensure that DoD cost estimates provided to senior management
reflect as accurately as possible DoD’s experience
DCARC Mission & Objectives• Mission
– To collect historical Major Defense Acquisition Program cost andsoftware resource data and make those data available for use by authorized government analysts to estimate the cost of ongoing and future government programs, particularly DoD weapon systems.
• Objectives– Make CSDR reporting as inexpensive and least disruptive as
possible for contractors.– Provide wide availability of CSDR data to legitimate government
users.– Maintain integrity and accuracy of data collected.– Improve quality of data reported by industry.
4
“Actual” Contractor Cost Data• Provides basis of cost estimates of future systems
– Long and painful DoD experience has shown that “actual” cost of producing systems are, by far, the best basis for cost estimates
• To be useful for this purpose, definitionally consistent historical data are needed
• CCDRs are DoD’s only systematic mechanism for capturing actual data
5
Software Resource Data• Software is a cost driver on many systems and
the DoD has little historical data upon which to base future estimates– There are no data to compare estimated software
cost and size with actual program results; no records of software metrics
– Tried and failed to match CARDs with CCDR data– Software data routinely reported as “red” at annual
DoD Cost Analysis Symposium
6
DCARC Goal• Collect and make available data that are:
– Comparable (i.e., across programs)– Meaningful (i.e., level of detail that provides insight)– Transparent (i.e., well defined) – Accurate– Auditable
7
So…where are we?
8
DoD 5000 Compliance
9
AARGM AMRAAM ADS 21" MRUUVS AWACS UpgradeAEHF** B-2 RMP C-130 AMP** ACS C-5 AMPAIM-9X CEC CH-47F AIAMD ERMARH CH-53K COBRA JUDY APS FAB-TATIRCM/CMWS DDG 1000 (DD(X)) CVN-21 AR/LSB JSTARSBRADLEY UPGD** E-2C REPROD EELV BMTC MEADS**C-130J F/A-18 E/F** F-22 CG(X) RMSC-17A F-35 GLOBAL HAWK** DCGS-A SIAPC-5 RERP FBCB2 GMLRS DCGS-AF VTUAV Fire ScoutE/A-18G** FCS H-1 Upgrades** JNNE-2D ADV Hawkeye JLENS JTRS GMR (CL 1) LBSDEFV LPD-17** JTRS HMS (CL 5) NGLRSEXCALIBUR MPS JTRS Joint Waveform ODSI CHEM DEMILFMTV NAVSTAR GPS** LAND WARRIOR SR HPCMGBS NPOESS LB APACHE BLK III* STS CONNECTOR JPATSHIMARS SSGN** LCS** MIDS LVTJASSM V-22 LHA Replacement AOC-WS NASJDAM (EMD) WIN-T MH-60R E-10 SSDSJSOW MIDS JTRS ECSSMH-60S MM III PRP JTRS AMFMM III GRP MP RTIPMUOS NAVSTAR GPS UE B-2 EHF CVN77P-8 (MMA) SM 2 (IV) BAMS DDG51PATRIOT PAC-3 SSN 774 CSAR-X BMDSSBIRS HIGH T-AKE JCASDB I JHSVSM-6 (ERAM) JPALSSTRYKER JUCASTAC TOMAHAWK KC-XUH-60M Upgrade LUHVH-71 (VXX) MPF(F)WGS NAVSTAR GPS III
NMTSDB IITSAT
32 18 25 33 18
TOTAL PROGRAMS 126
Programs Waived
Programs Grandfathered
Active Programs w/CAIG Approved CSDR Plans &
No Issues
Active Programs w/CAIG Approved CSDR Plans &
Minor Issues1
Active Programs w/CAIG Approved CSDR Plans &
Major Issues3Programs Not RatedPre-MDAP
ACAT IC/ID CSDR StatusPost-Dropping of Advisory Ratings
Proper CSDR PlanningEarly Problems
No Action
As of January 10, 20071- Or Agreed Upon Path Forward2- Includes Data Issues or Plan Implementation Issues3- Includes No Progress on Data Issues or Plan
Implementation Issues*-Initial Assessment**-Withhold program on a get well plan
10
Analytical Activities• CSDR Plans
– Approved Plans
– Plans in progress
Plans IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID Total IC ID TotalProgram 4 2 6 3 13 16 15 17 32 32 45 79 25 33 63 79 110 196Contract 11 1 12 12 18 30 34 27 61 71 97 175 58 118 189 186 261 467Subcontract 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 57 62 36 143 185 27 100 129 68 303 379Total 15 3 18 15 34 49 54 101 155 139 285 439 110 251 381 333 674 1,042
CY2006 TotalCY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005
Plans IC ID TotalProgram 1 4 5Contract 10 18 29Subcontract 5 13 20Total 16 35 54
Plans in Progress
As of December 31, 2006
11
CY 2006 CSDR Plan Statistics Distribution of Plans Approved in CY06
24 23 17
1
6562 58
79
4
203
64
3728
129
0
50
100
150
200
250
Army Navy Air Force DoD Total
Program Plans Approved
Contract Plans Approved
Subcontract Plans Approved
12
CY 2006 CSDR Plan Statistics-Cont’d
21
44110
93
62
67
0
50
100
150
200
250
Program Plans Contract Plans Subcontract Plans
CY2006 CSDR Plans Approved
RevisedNew
More than 50% of CY2006 Plans were
revisions
13
An Example CSDR Plan Revisions
NEW 1st Revision(R) 2nd Revision(R1) 3rd Revision(R2) 4th Revision(R3)
Count 192 135(70%) 62(32%) 12(6%) 4(2%)Air Force 69 36 15 5Army 49 57 33 7 4Navy 71 33 14DoD 3 9
Aircraft 62 41 24 1Air Force 18 11Army 26 7Navy 17 14DoD 1 9
Missile 11 18 2 4 3Army 18
Ordnance 4 5 1 RevisionsAir Force 2 2 1st 2nd 3rd 4thNavy 2 3 Missile 18
Electronics 43 14 5 1 1 Army 18Air Force 7 3 Javelin Jt Venture, Orlando JAVELINArmy 10 9 Raytheon, Tucson JAVELINNavy 24 2 LMM&FC, Orlando JAVELINDoD 2 LMM&FC, Dallas PAC-3, HIMARS GMLRS, HIMARS
Space 36 20 5 3 Aerojet GMLRSAir Force 36 18 General Dynamics GMLRSNavy 2
Surface Vehicle 6 14 3Army 12Navy 6 2
Ship 15 10 2Navy 15 10
UAV 11 2 1Air Force 4 2Navy 7
Sys of Sys 4 11 20 2Army 11
CAUSALITY:- AMCOM- EDUCATION & TRAINING- DEVIATIONS IN CWBS FROM MIL-HDBK-8881A MISSILE SYSTEM WBS- MULTIPLE PHASES PER CONTRACT- MULTIPLE VARIANTS PER CONTRACT- IMPROPER RFP PACKAGES- LACK OF PRIME-SUBCONTRACTOR-GOV'T PLANNING & POST-AWARD EXECUTION- WRONG WBSs in RFPs- LACK OF PRIME OVERSIGHT ON SUBCONTRACTOR REPORTING-
Analysis of CY2006 CSDR Plans
14
Why so many Plan Revisions?• Systemic Problems- What we are doing wrong
– Incorrect, Incomplete & Non-Compliant WBS in RFP (e.g. NLOS-LS)– Lack of CAIG-Approved CSDR Plan in RFP (JTRS SRW 1 day
notice before contract award)– Program Manager’s & Contracting Officers uninformed/don’t care
about CSDR Requirements (e.g. MDA- SM-3)– Prime-Subcontractor Flow-Down Requirement Deficiencies (e.g.
Lockheed Martin failed to flow down requirement to Boeing on RF Missile Seeker- PAC-3)
– Lack of Discipline & Management Oversight by Gov’t CWIPT leads (F-22 10 Years of neglect lead to Resubmissions by Prime & Subs)
– Acquisition Reform Policies (e.g. AMRAAM, JASSM retroactive reporting)
• Program Unique- Normal Reasons for Revisions– Restructures– Contract Type Changes– Make/Buy Changes– Updated based on Contractor Responses
15
Analytical Activities• Validate CSDR Submissions
– CCDR Metrics:
– SRDR Metrics:
CY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005 CY2006 TotalCCDR Reports Received 164 247 387 1214 1306 3318CCDR Reports Validated 119 145 332 1239 1407 3242CCDR Reports Accepted 25 16 101 585 860 1587CCDR Reports Rejected 94 129 231 654 526 1634Validation Rate/Yr 73% 59% 86% 100% 100% 98%Acception Rate/Yr 21% 11% 30% 47% 61% 49%
CY2002 CY2003 CY2004 CY2005 CY2006 TotalSRDR Reports Received 0 0 9 66 99 174SRDR Reports Validated 0 0 0 0 111 111SRDR Reports Accepted 0 0 0 0 20 20SRDR Reports Rejected 0 0 0 0 91 91Validation Rate/Yr N/A N/A N/A 0% 100% 64%Acception Rate/Yr N/A N/A N/A 0% 18% 18%
As of December 31, 2006
16
CSDR Training Statistics
120
235
197
334
124
143
4227
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
# of
Stu
dent
s
CY 2004 CY2005 CY2006 CY2007
CSDR Training Metrics
IndustryGov't
> 1200 Students Trained
17
DACIMS Holdings
18
Reports by Commodity
Mil Handbook Number of ReportsAircraft 13635Electronic/Automated Software 3507Missile 9607Ordnance 517Ship 222Space 1140Surface Vehicle 708System of System 9UAV 95
Total 29914
19
Top Aircraft Programs
Program Number of ReportsF-14 772F/A-18 726A-4 688EA-6 666A-6 590E-2 (Hawkeye) 583P-3 538A-7 517UH-60 489AH-64 455
20
Current Aircraft ProgramsProgram Number of Reports
F/A-18 726AH-64 455CH-47 301F-22 279C-17 151V-22 140F-35 100EA-18 50MH-60 50H-1 Upgrades 45E-2 (Advanced Hawkeye) 26VH-71 (Presidential Helicopter) 20P-8 (MMA) 8CH-53K (HLR) 5RAH-70 (ARH) 3
21
Top Missile Programs
Program Number of ReportsAIM-9 (Sidewinder) 1057AIM-7; RIM-7 (Sparrow; Sea Sparrow) 973AIM-54 (Phoenix) 707LGM-118 (Peacekeeper) 597AGM-84; RGM-84; UGM-84 (Harpoon) 548AGM-114 (Hellfire) 540FIM-92 (Stinger Basic) 441MIM-72 (Chaparral) 434UGM-96 (Trident I (C-4)) 376MIM-104 (Patriot) 335
22
Current Missile Programs
Program Number of ReportsAIM-9 (Sidewinder) 1057AIM-120 (AMRAAM) 292LGM-30 (Minuteman III) 71GMLRS (Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) 64AGM-154 (Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)) 55MIM-104D (Patriot PAC-3) 26MGM-164 (ATACMS BLOCK II) 24NLOS-LS (Non-Line-of-Sight Launch System) 14Extended Range Active Missile (Standard Missile-6) 10RIM-66 (Standard Missile-2 (SM-2 MR )) 10AGM-158 (Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)) 8RIM-156 (Standard Missile 2 (SM-2 ER)) 7Joint Common Missile 6R/UGM-109 (Tactical Tomahawk) 5RIM-67 (Standard Missile 2 (SM-2)) 2HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) 1
23
Top E/ASS Programs
Program Number of ReportsF-14 (Tomcat) 457AH-64 (Apache) 279B-1 (Lancer) 209E-8 (Joint STARS) 185Future Combat Systems (FCS) 153F-16 (Fighting Falcon) 145FBCB2 (FORCE XXI Battle Command Brigade & Below) 129PLRS/JTIDS (Position Locating Reporting System/Joint Tactical Information Distribution 127MIDS-LVT (Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal) 115F/A-18 (Hornet) 106
24
Current E/ASS ProgramsProgram Number of Reports
AH-64 (Apache) 279E-8 (Joint STARS) 185Future Combat Systems (FCS) 153FBCB2 (FORCE XXI Battle Command Brigade & Below) 129MIDS-LVT (Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminal) 115CEC (Cooperative Engagement Capability) 63Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) 62F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) 41P-8 (MMA) 33E-2 (Advanced Hawkeye) 27F-22 (Raptor) 24SSN-21 (Seawolf Submarine Combat System) 24V-22 (Osprey) 22JTRS Cluster 1 (Joint Tactical Radio System) 16UH-60 (Black Hawk) 13MP-RTIP (Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program) 12Land Warrior 11Cobra Judy Replacement (CJR) 9GBS (Global Broadcast Service) 6Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) 4
25
Top Space Programs
Program Number of ReportsLS-3 (Defense Support Program (DSP)) 191SLV-5 (Titan III) 145NS-7 (Global Positioning System (NAVSTAR GPS)) 140ES-8 (MILSTAR) 76Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) 69WS-1 (Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) 59Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite 55SB-5 (Titan IV) 49SSB-7 (Inertial Upper Stage (IUS)) 47SB-3 (Delta II) 42
26
Current Space Programs
Program Number of ReportsNS-7 (Global Positioning System (NAVSTAR GPS)) 140Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) 69Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite 55LS-3 (SBIRS-HIGH) 38National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) 30Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) 27EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) 7ABL (Airborne Laser) 5
27
Surface Vehicle Programs
Program Number of ReportsExpeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) 204M2, M3 (Bradley Fighting Vehicle System (BFVS)/Upgrade) 194M270 (Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)) 90M1126-M1135 (Stryker) 75FMTV (Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles) 42M1074; M1075 (Palletized Loading System (PLS)) 33Future Combat Systems (FCS) 21M1 (Abrams) 15M6 (Bradley Linebacker) 12HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) 11
28
Sea System Programs
Program Number of ReportsLittoral Combat Ship (LCS) 61DDG 1000 (Zumwalt Class) 46T-AKE (ADC(X) Auxiliary Dry Cargo Carrier) 26LPD-17 (San Antonio Class) 19FFG 7 (Guided Missile Frigate) 17CVN-21 12SSGN (Trident) 11SSN 21 (Seawolf Class) 6SSBN 726 (Ohio Class Trident) 4
29
SRDR Holdings
Program
Number of Available 2630-2
Submissions
Number of Available 2630-3
Submissions
Total Number of 2630
SubmissionsB-2 RMP 1 1C-130J 1 1CEC 3 1 4Cobra Judy Replacement 1 1DDG 1000 1 1EA-18G 2 2EFV 3 1 4FBCB2 1 2 3FCS 20 11 31H-1 Upgrades 1 1ISPAN 2 2 4JSF 3 3LCS 1 1MP-RTIP 2 2THAAD 2 3 5TSAT 1 1WIN-T 4 1 5
Total 49 21 70
30
IT Systems
31
Public Web Site Today• http://dcarc.pae.osd.mil
IT Systems Launch Pad
32
Today: User Registration• Access of DCARC Systems requires
a DCARC issued certificate.• Register to
– Obtain a certificate– Request account to access to DACIMS– Request account to access to eRoom
• Limitations– Access to DACIMS is restricted to Govt only.– Access to eRoom areas is by MDAP.– CSDR Submission Only Requires Certificate.
33
• New User RegistrationToday: User Registration
After you register, DCARC IT Support generates a digital certificate for you. Come back to this page to retrieve it
34
• Step 1
Today: User Registration
Request Roles: Submitter, DACIMS Access, or eRoom Access
35
• Step 2
Today: User Registration
36
• Step 3
Today: User Registration
37
ServiceProgramOffice
CSDR and EVM Reporting: Current Status
DCARC
DoD Cost Community
Monthly EVM,12- 17 days post
“as of date”, detailed WBS
Event-driven CSDR,60 days post “as of date”,
detailed WBS
Excel@
Defense Acquisition Board
Industry
Data ready15 days after receipt
75 days post “as of date”
PMs & Other DoDOrganizationsRequest
CSDR Data
Cost Estimates & Analysis
Request
JointProgramOffice
@WordPDF
Paper
Excel
EDI
CARS/DAMIR
SERVICES
CSDR EVM
CSDR Data
EVM MetricsSummary level only
OSD/(AT&L) & Joint Staff
EVM Data: Manually entered,
Summary level only
Takes 3-6 months** post “as of date”,
summary level only
**- For the Army it is 1-2 months
post “as of date”
38
Today: DACIMS 3.0a
39
Organized around Mil Handbook, Weapon System Type, Program, and Model
Today: DACIMS 3.0aSearch Button
MIL-HDBK Category
Weapon System Type(based on military designation)
Program Name
Model/Subsystem
40
• Sample Search: F-22
Today: DACIMS 3.0a
All “file cabinets” are accepted or historical reports and should contain DCARC memo
Info – Opens page with metadata and attachment list
Open – Opens cost report in new window
Download – Opens box with option to open/save (this will be the fastest way to download data in bulk)
41
• Data Record Types– Folder Cabinets:
typical for newer records to keep the submission components together
– Single files: Icon identifies file time; title describes content.
Today: DACIMS 3.0a
Legacy TIF format
(A) = Accepted(R) = Rejected(P) = Pending(H) = Historical
42
• Sample Data Record Detail (part 1)
Today: DACIMS 3.0a
43
• Sample Data Record Detail (part 1)
Today: DACIMS 3.0a
44
Coming Soon…
45
DoD 5000 Compliance
46
Policy Activities• Submitted for approval
– Revised CSDR Manual– Revised CCDR Forms and DIDs– SRDR DIDs
• Expect– Approval by March 1, 2007– Effective April 2, 2007
47
DoD 5000.04 M-1, CSDR Manual• Transferred to the DCARC public web site:
– CSDR Plan (DD2794) format and instructions– Contracting language (RFP & CDRL examples)– SRDR Sample Format 1, Government Report
• Streamlined the Manual– Deleted some background & introductory info– Eliminated duplicative material, – Combined Chapters 4, 5, and 6 into one Chapter (4),
Processing and Reporting
48
DoD 5000.04 M-1, CSDR Manual• Added pre-contract or post contract award
conference• Revised recurring and nonrecurring definitions• Clarified reporting for undefinitized contractual
actions• Updated and added more detail to the CSDR
Process Model in Chapter 4
49
CCDR Forms and DIDs• Changed Progress Curve Report to its own form and DID• Specified cost interrelationships among the three reports• Revised recurring and nonrecurring definitions• Changed the Manufacturing functional category to
Manufacturing Operations• Revised definitions of Tooling and Material (including
subclasses) • Added definition and reporting instructions for inter-
company transfers• Revised instructions for quantity to date• Clarified reporting requirements for Initial, Interim, & Final• Provided for submission of reports in XML format in
addition to the Excel compatible formats
50
SRDR DIDs• Disestablished DD Form 2630-2 & -3• Added sample formats• Removed sample data dictionary• Provided guidance on minimum acceptable set of
information required in the SRDR data dictionary• Added meta data fields to improve the clarity and
context of the data – Software functional descriptions – Characterization of software development effort – Software development method(s) used – Cross-references to contract DD 2794 & contract WBS
51
SRDR DIDs• Added required data fields
– to improve reported software size data• Autogenerated code, • ‘Carryover’ code from previous builds, and • Percent re-design, re-code, re-test (to be explained in the
data dictionary) – to clarify reporting of sub-contractor developed
software code and sub-contractor software development effort
• Added optional data fields for: – COTS/GOTS SW integration efforts – Standardized software sizing counts via a code
counting tool directed by the Government
52
DACIMS Holdings
53
Future SubmissionsType 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalCCDR Reports 466 315 272 225 135 93 44 19 26 5 4 1604SRDR Reports 174 88 64 61 53 27 12 6 14 2 1 502Total 640 403 336 286 188 120 56 25 40 7 5 2106
Commodity CCDR SRDR TotalAircraft 604 67 671Electronic/Automated Software 192 116 308Missile 145 4 149Ordnance 36 2 38Ship 215 36 251Space 171 103 274Surface Vehicle 61 2 63System of Systems 137 162 299UAV 43 10 53Grand Total 1604 502 2106
54
Future Aircraft SubmissionsProgram 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total
AB3 9 6 6 1 2 24ARH 4 5 1 10C-5 RERP 1 1 1 3CH-47F 7 6 1 1 1 1 17CH-53K 5 2 4 4 1 1 3 20E-2C REPRO 3 2 2 7E-2D 24 16 8 8 8 1 2 67EA-18G 10 5 6 21F-22 28 14 6 6 6 2 62FA-18EF 10 7 10 9 9 6 2 53H-1 Upgrades 8 3 1 11 23JSF 26 26 26 26 17 15 18 4 158Longbow Apache 3 1 2 3 9MH-60R 9 7 7 5 4 2 2 36MH-60S 4 2 3 2 3 2 16MMA 6 5 1 1 5 18T - 45TS 4 3 4 11UH-60M 18 6 4 9 2 2 2 43V-22 12 6 12 9 9 48VH-71 5 5 10 5 25Total 195 125 107 102 62 46 27 4 3 671
55
Future E/ASS SubmissionsProgram 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
ADS 3 3 6AESA 2 2 4AOC-WS 3 1 3 1 4 4 2 3 21ATIRCM/CMWS 3 3 3 3 2 2 16B-2 EHF 1 1 1 3B-2 RMP 4 2 4 4 2 16CEC 4 2 1 2 9FBCB2 8 2 3 1 14JLENS 6 7 7 11 6 12 49JTRS AMF 3 1 4JTRS GMR 12 12JTRS HMS 6 4 10JTRS SRW 2 4 2 2 10MIDS - JTRS 2 2MP-RTIP 7 6 6 19MPS 27 23 18 18 15 5 3 1 1 1 1 113Total 93 59 40 48 28 24 7 1 3 4 1 308
56
Future Space SubmissionsProgram 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
AEHF 3 3 3 3 1 13EELV 2 2FAB-T 12 4 8 4 16 44GPS 28 19 12 1 60MUOS 9 7 4 3 3 26NMT 8 16 4 4 32NPOESS 6 6 6 12 12 42SBIRS HI 4 4 4 12TSAT 14 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 3 2 34WGS 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9Total 88 58 44 34 36 2 3 4 3 2 274
57
Future Ship Submissions
Program 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TotalCJR 8 2 4 3 3 20CVN 21 3 3 2 8DDG 1000 28 26 25 34 2 2 117LCS 10 5 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 30LHA(R) 1 1 1 1 4LPD 17 2 4 2 4 4 16RMS 13 2 3 18SSGN 3 4 7SSN 774 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 24T-AKE 3 2 1 1 7Total 74 49 44 44 13 11 4 4 7 1 251
58
Future Missile Submissions
Program 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 TotalAARGM 3 1 4AIM-9X 2 1 1 4AMRAAM 1 1 1 1 1 1 6GMLRS 15 5 4 24JASSM 4 1 1 1 1 1 9JSOW 13 6 6 5 5 35MM III GRP 2 2 2 2 8MM III PRP 4 3 6 13NLOS 6 6 12PAC-3 8 6 2 2 2 20SM-2 1 1 1 1 4SM-6 1 1 1 2 5Tactical Tomahawk 2 1 1 1 5Total 55 33 27 21 9 2 1 1 149
59
Future SV & UAV Submissions
Program 2007 2008 2009 2010 TotalBradley Upgrade 5 5 10EFV 11 5 10 26FMTV 1 1 3 5HIMARS 3 1 1 5Stryker 6 7 4 17Total 21 19 18 5 63
Program 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TotalGlobal Hawk 11 13 2 4 2 32NUCAS 2 1 1 1 1 6VTUAV 7 5 3 15Total 20 19 5 5 3 1 53
60
IT Systems
61
cPET 1.0 beta• CSDR Planning & Execution Tool (cPET)• Major functions:
– Implemented against Draft XML Schema.– Development of Program / Contract plans
• Generates form DD2794 based on the selected program or contract.
• Create Responsibility Assignment Matrix.– Creation and validation of 1921 and 1921-1
reports.
62
cPET 1.0 beta• Basic Information
63
cPET 1.0 beta• CSDR Planning Major Components
64
cPET 1.0 beta• Creating the WBS, defaults to Mil Handbook
65
cPET 1.0 beta• Block 15: Submission Events
66
cPET 1.0 beta• Create DD2794
67
cPET 1.0 beta• Responsibility Assignment Matrix
68
cPET 1.0 beta• Validation Example
69
cPET 1.0 beta• Validation Example
70
cPET 1.0 beta• Validation Example
71
CSDR and EVM Reporting: Improved Model
???????
Monthly EVM,12- 17 days post
“as of date”, detailed WBS
Event-driven CSDR,60 days post “as of date”,
detailed WBS
Excel@
Defense Acquisition Board
Industry
Cost Estimates & Analysis
DoD Cost Community
PMs & Other DoD Organizations
@
Format
DAMIR
SERVICES
EVM Data availableto PMs Immediately upon receipt, 12-17
days post “as of date
Decisions required:1. Location of repository2. Single format and submission path3. Business rules regarding data availability
EVM Data Available via preset
business rules
Request
Request
Data
Data
Request
Summary levelEVM Data via Purview
Detailed EVM Data via Virtual Library
EVM Metrics
OSD/(AT&L) & Joint Staff
Data ready15 days after receipt
75 days post “as of date”
72
DACIMS 4.0 beta• Limited beta test to begin Mar 2007
Organized around user functions– Search
– CSDR– FPR
– DCARC/OSD Review Area– Integrated Web-Upload Function
NOTES: – Will support both certificates and CAC– Submitters will need certificate AND username/password
73
DACIMS 4.0 beta• Sample CSDR Search
74
DACIMS 4.0 beta• Sample CSDR Search Results (contract list)
Organized by contractNumber of document meeting search criteria
75
DACIMS 4.0 beta• Sample CSDR Search Results (document list)
76
DACIMS 4.0 Interface, Organized by User Role
EVM Central Repository Pilot
77
EVM Central Repository Pilot• Reviewer Pending Activity
78
EVM Central Repository Pilot• Document Review Process: Document Detail
79
EVM Central Repository Pilot• Document Review Process
During review process, PM controls access to submission data. Can invite submitting contractor and support contractors to participate in review and provided comments.
80
Summary• Actual Experience is the best predictor• DCARC
– Tasked with collecting “actual” cost and software data– Activities designed to
• Make CSDR reporting as inexpensive and least disruptive as possible for contractors
• Provide wide availability of CSDR data to legitimate government users
• Maintain integrity and accuracy of data collected• Improve quality of data reported by industry
• Need proactive participation by CWIPT members– Leads to collecting the right type of data
Related Documents
