Headquarters U S Air Force Integrity Service Excellence

Headquarters U. S. Air Force Integrity - Service - Excellence Air Force Cost Analysis in 2011 Mr. Rich Hartley Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Cost and Economics) 1

Setting the Stage “Nobody can afford wishful thinking anymore. We certainly learned that with the F-35. We will pinpoint what we have to have and it will neither be lowball nor wishful thinking. ” -- Gen Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff Aviation Week & Space Technology, May 17, 2010 Integrity - Service - Excellence 2

Overview n WSARA n Cost in the AF POM n Do. D efficiency agenda n Should cost, Red Team Reviews, etc n Special studies, BCAs, etc. n Training, education and development n Closing thoughts Integrity - Service - Excellence 3

WSARA n CAPE Influence n “With concurrence of the DCAPE” Full funding consistent with SCP n Documentation n Annual report on cost n n MDAP issue team n MS-A n Certifications n CSDR VAMOSC n MAIS n Integrity - Service - Excellence 4

Cost in AF POM n AFPD 65 -5 n Annual A 8 call n Portfolio cost risk analysis n Decision support n Cost consciousness culture change n MDAP issue team n Involved Integrity - Service - Excellence 5

Cost in AF POM (cont) n n n FY 11 APOM: 20 Programs, 34% of AF Investment FY 12 POM: 48 Programs, 42% of AF Investment Successes: n n n Increased Pgm Office/AFCAA collaboration stronger estimates Pre-briefed PEOs Excursions with valid cost data Cost conscious decisions risk reduced MDAP issue team! Lessons Learned: n n NACAs earlier to influence MAJCOM POMs Increase PEM involvement Acceptance maturing Expand SIPRNET access Integrity - Service - Excellence 6

Cost in AF POM Portfolio Cost Risk Assessment Example Portfolio 1 Sub-total (TY$M) Estimates POM Funding Estimate Delta G FY 12 93. 7 117. 2 23. 5 Portfolio 2 Sub-total (TY$M) Estimates R POM Funding Estimate Delta Portfolio 3 Sub-total (TY$M) Estimates POM Funding Estimate Delta Y G NACA 0 - 5% > PB FY 14 84. 0 142. 8 58. 8 FY 15 91. 7 126. 6 34. 9 Subtotal FY 16 12 -16 872. 5 4, 600. 2 FY 12 815. 8 FY 13 953. 2 FY 14 974. 6 FY 15 984. 2 652. 9 (162. 9) 656. 0 (297. 1) 680. 6 (293. 9) 681. 4 (302. 8) 631. 1 (241. 4) 3, 302. 1 (1, 298. 1) FY 13 1, 281. 5 1, 216. 8 (64. 7) FY 14 1, 021. 6 1, 051. 3 29. 7 FY 15 1, 159. 0 1, 215. 0 56. 0 FY 16 1, 787. 5 1, 182. 7 (604. 8) Subtotal 12 -16 6, 524. 0 5, 910. 0 (614. 0) FY 12 1, 274. 4 1, 244. 1 (30. 3) Y FY 13 103. 4 120. 0 16. 6 Subtotal 12 FY 16 -16 96. 8 469. 6 0. 0 506. 6 (96. 8) 37. 0 NACA 6 – 24% > PB R Integrity - Service - Excellence NACA > 25% of PB 7

Efficiencies n Carter memo n Acquisition efficiencies n Affordability n SECDEF consideration of costs memo n FY 2011 NDAA Integrity - Service - Excellence 8

Dr. Carter Memo on Better Buying Power n USD/AT&L Memo 3 Nov 2010 n Target affordability and controlling cost growth n Incentivize productivity & innovation in industry n Promote real competition n Improve tradecraft in services acquisition n Reduce non-productive processes and bureaucracy Integrity - Service - Excellence 9

FY 2011 NDAA Sec 811 § Sec 811. Cost Estimates for Program Baselines and Contract Negotiations for MDAPs and MAIS Programs § … estimates developed for baseline descriptions … are not to be used § § § for the purpose of contract negotiations … estimates [for negotiations and obligations] …based on governments reasonable expectation of successful contractor performance …the PM and Contracting Officer for each MDAP/MAIS shall ensure that cost analyses and targets developed for the purpose of contract negotiations and the obligations of funds be carried out …[in] a high degree of confidence that the program can be completed without the need for significant adjustment to program budgets …funds that are made available for a MDAP/MAIS program IAW a cost estimate …but are excess to a cost analysis or target developed …shall remain available for obligation in accordance with the terms of applicable authorizations or appropriations Acts. Integrity - Service - Excellence 10

Should Cost, Red Team Reviews, Etc. n USD (AT&L) - PM owns should cost n SAF/AQ – independent “special study” should costs n Completed n EELV n Global Hawk n F-22 Mod JAT n F-135 JAT n Potential Future n n n B-2 DMS SDB II SBIRS AEHF GPS-MGUE GPS-OCX Integrity - Service - Excellence 11

Special Studies & BCAs n SECAFs TFE/TFI n Civilian PCS n Military end strength n FM Center of Expertise (COE) n 218 projects greater than $3. 4 B over the FYDP Integrity - Service - Excellence 12

Other n Cost estimate confidence level n Joint Space Cost Council / Cost IPTs n Revitalize program control n Earned Value Management n Updating AFIs Integrity - Service - Excellence 13

Training, Education and Development n BUS-CE – curriculum / certification n NPS cost masters – distance program n Developing AFIT professional development courses n Supplement DAU – more robust n AT&L Key Leadership Positions (KLPs) n AFIT Masters---civilians? Integrity - Service - Excellence 14

You Can Help § Identify and advocate “real” requirements for the job § Consider past performance, AFPD 65 -5 and WSARA § Build relationships with engineering, contracting, and PMA&E § Help build AFIs, handbooks, and training material § Contribute to data collection and methods development § Get reacquainted with documentation Integrity - Service - Excellence 15

Closing Thoughts n AF FM has fiduciary responsibility to be honest broker n Maintain your objectivity n Cost estimators, don’t forget n Skills are more valuable than ever to the Air Force n Estimating is forecasting—leverage past knowledge for future predictors n Challenge technical and schedule assumptions—they drive your product Integrity - Service - Excellence 16

Integrity - Service - Excellence 17

NDAA 2011 Sec 811 SEC. 811. COST ESTIMATES FOR PROGRAM BASELINES AND CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM PROGRAMS. Section 2334 of title 10, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (d)— (A) in paragraph (1)— (i) by striking ‘‘paragraph (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (3)’’; and (ii) by striking ‘‘, the rationale for selecting such confidence level, and, if such confidence level is less than 80 percent, the justification for selecting a confidence level of less than 80 percent; and’’ and inserting ‘‘and the rationale for selecting such confidence level; ’’; (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph (2): ‘‘(2) ensure that such confidence level provides a high degree of confidence that the program can be completed without the need for significant adjustment to program budgets; and’’; (2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (f) and (g), respectively; and (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new subsection (e): ‘‘(e) ESTIMATES FOR PROGRAM BASELINE AND ANALYSES AND TARGETS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATION PURPOSES. —(1) The policies, procedures, and guidance issued by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation in accordance with the requirements of subsection (a) shall provide that— ‘‘(A) cost estimates developed for baseline descriptions and other program purposes conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(6) are not to be used for the purpose of contract negotiations or the obligation of funds; and ‘‘(B) cost analyses and targets developed for the purpose of contract negotiations and the obligation of funds are based on the Government’s reasonable expectation of successful contractor performance in accordance with the contractor’s proposal and previous experience. ‘‘(2) The Program Manager and contracting officer for each major defense acquisition program and major automated information system program shall ensure that cost analyses and targets developed for the purpose of contract negotiations and the obligation of funds are carried out in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (1) and the policies, procedures, and guidance issued by the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. ‘‘(3) Funds that are made available for a major defense acquisition program or major automated information system program in accordance with a cost estimate conducted pursuant to subsection (a)(6), but are excess to a cost analysis or target developed pursuant to paragraph (2), shall remain available for obligation in accordance with the terms of applicable authorization and appropriations Acts. ‘‘(4) Funds described in paragraph (3)— ‘‘(A) may be used— ‘‘(i) to cover any increased program costs identified by a revised cost analysis or target developed pursuant to paragraph (2); ‘‘(ii) to acquire additional end items in accordance with the requirements of section 2308 of this title; or ‘‘(iii) to cover the cost of risk reduction and process improvements; And ‘‘(B) may be reprogrammed, in accordance with established procedures, only if determined to be excess to program needs on the basis of a cost estimate developed with the concurrence of the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. ’’. Integrity - Service - Excellence 18