1. FlexFiles

2. The Future of Cost & Data Analysis
FlexFiles
Agenda
FlexFile is an automated data collection method used to seamlessly organize and centralize data to unleash the true potential of analysis
This brief is a success if it demonstrates the…
Evolution of the FlexFile
Benefits of the FlexFile
Features of the FlexFile
Process of the FlexFile
Improves Data Quality through Access to Native Cost Data
Ensures Completeness through Allocation & Mapping Visibility
Increases Efficiency through Seamless Data Integration
Data
FlexFile
The Future of Cost & Data Analysis

3. The FlexFile… FlexFile Overview
FlexFiles
Overview
The FlexFile…
Since the 1960s, Cost and Contractor Data Reports (CCDRs) have provided the same data in the same format
The FlexFile initiative:
Modernizes CCDR submissions
Streamlines the transmission process
Increases analyst efficiency
Results:
Improved Data Quality
Complete & thorough data for better analysis
Seamless Data Integration
Improves Data Quality through Access to Native Cost Data
Detailed insight and analysis flexibility
Collect data according to the contractor’s native structure
Ensures Completeness through Allocation & Mapping Visibility
Minimize arbitrary allocations and errors
Eliminate human error and subjectivity
Increases Efficiency through Seamless Data Integration
Leverage latest technology
Reduce ad hoc data collection efforts FF FF
FlexFile
Evolution
Crawl
Walk
Run
Legacy
Round 0
Rounds 1&2
Round 3
Future
1960 ~ 2014
2017+

4. Same 1921 Forms have been used since the 1960s
FlexFile Evolution:
Legacy Reports
Legacy Reports
1921, formatted CCDRs today require an average of
533 hours per contract,
assuming set-up and 4 reports
Results Based on 2012 IDA Study: Estimated Resources for Preparing Contractor Cost Data Reports [29 Responses]
Time consuming to industry
Enforced standardization to contractor rate structure
Allocations are not transparent
No time-phasing of actual costs
Insufficient data results in additional site visits
Report generation prone to human error
Same 1921 Forms have been used since the 1960s

5. Work Breakdown Structure Standard Functional Category
FlexFiles
Actuals To Date
End Item
Order or Lot
The foundation is a
resource associating dollars or hours with a
charge number in the accounting system at a
point in time
Contracting process already requires
Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)
Forward Pricing Rate (FPR) Categories
Reporting Month
FlexFile requires
WBS
Recurring or Non-Recurring (may be mapped from FPR Rate Cats)
FlexFile sometimes requires
Unit or Sublot
CLIN
Work Breakdown Structure
… $/HR
Charge #
Recurring or
Non-Recurring
Unit or
Sublot*
Resource
Time
FPR Categories
Reporting Month
Standard Functional Category
Contracting Reqts.
Additional FlexFile Reqts.
Mapping
* As Required by the CSDR Plan and only for touch labor

6. Approved DID Data Groups
FlexFiles
Approved DID Data Groups
Data Group A
Data Group B
Data Group C
Report Metadata
Approved Plan Number
Submission Event
Period of Performance
Reporting Organization
Date Prepared
Classification
DD Form 2794 Information
(Co-Plan)
WBS Code/Level/Name
Order Name
End Items
Additional Tags #1-#12
Contractor Definitions and Remarks
CWBS Dictionary
Remarks by WBS element
Summary Remarks
Major DID Changes since 2015
Synchronized definitions and references between the DIDs, data models, and Co-Plan
Reorganization of the FlexFile Data Groups
Higher level Standard Functional Categories
New structure for handling multiple Orders (e.g., Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3) and multiple End Items (e.g., Variant A, Variant B) within the same FlexFile submission
Removed Supplemental Information (e.g. Bill of Material, Floor Hour Report, Hour Per Vehicle Report)
Terminology changes to avoid EVMS terms
EACs now Forecasts At Completion (FAC)
Data Group D
Data Group E
Data Group F
Summary Elements
Subtotal
General and Administrative
Undistributed Budget
Management Reserve
Facilities Capital Cost of Money
Contract Fee
Price
Actuals To Date (ATD)
Account
Reporting Period
CLIN
Nonrecurring/Recurring
Contractor Func. Categories
Contractor Rate Pool
Standard Func. Categories
Unit/Sublot First/Last Number
Dollars/Hours
Allocation Methodology
Allocation Method Type ID
Allocation Method Name
Data Group G
Forecasts At Completion
(FAC)
FAC (Dollars/Hours)

7. Legacy 1921 costs are an aggregate of lower level cost categories
FlexFile Evolution: Round
Access to Native Data
Native Data
Benefits
Goal:
Develop initial prototypes to obtain native [raw] data
Result:
Three (3) prototypes determined concept was possible
Led to CAPE engaging with additional contractors
Led to cost and acquisition communities kicking off the official pilots
Needs
Allocation
Bottoms Up Analysis
Insight into Cost Accounts and Unallocated data
Costs reported the way the contractor collects it based on the contractor’s structure for accumulating and managing costs
Actuals + Unallocated
Detailed “on-the-ground” data from a single program
Mapped
Legacy 1921
FlexFile
SCOPE:
- End Item X
- Order/Lot
- CLIN
COST DATA:
- WBS
- Cost Account
- Rec/NR
- Unit/Sublot (as req'd)
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES:
- Forward Pricing Rate Cats
- CCDR Standard Cats
TIME-PHASING:
- Actuals by Month
Round 0
F-35 (LMCO)
PAC-3 (LMCO)
SBIRS (LMCO)
3 Pilots
Legacy 1921 costs are an aggregate of lower level cost categories

8. Allocation and Mapping
FlexFile Evolution: Round 1 &
Allocation and Mapping
Native Data
Benefits
Goal:
To obtain insight into cost accounts and allocation methodologies
Expanded scenarios with contractors and system commands
Result:
Learned native data files
can recreate Legacy 1921 reports
Needs
Allocation
Top Down Analysis
Ability to recreate Legacy 1921 reports
Mapping to the CSDR approved WBS
Allocation methodologies
Mapping to CCDR standard functional categories
Allows crosscheck to historical CCDRs
Allows analysts to view standardized data across business units and commodities
Mapped
Variant A
Variant B
Round 1
GPS III CAP (LMCO)
OCX (Raytheon)
WGS (Boeing)
3 Pilots
Material
Material
Round 2
F-35 LRIP 3 (LMCO)
WGS v2 (Boeing)
B-2 EHF (NGC)
DDG 113 (HII)
GMD (Boeing)
5 Pilots
Labor
Labor

9. Allocation and Mapping
FlexFile Evolution: Round
Allocation and Mapping
Native Data
Goals:
Goal:
Prove data files conform to the DID
Assess if contractors could enter data into the data model
Result:
Lessons learned informed the recent updates to the DID, Data Model, and Co-Plan
Needs
Allocation
Industry
Working with vendors and removing the human element
Innate data
Efficient report generation
Reduces cost
Government
Cost data will be housed in a relational database
Ability to apply own methodologies allows for dynamic views
Flat file download for analysis
Comparison across contracts, business units, programs
Mapped FF
Variant A
Variant B
Round 3
F-35 LRIP 3 (LMCO)
GMD (Boeing)
AEHF (LMCO)
Stryker (GDLS)
PIM (BAE)
B-2 (NGC)
WSF (TBD)
F-22 (LMCO)
C130J (LMCO)
SBIRS (LMCO)
SANR (TBD)
11 Pilots
Material
Material
Labor
Labor

10. FlexFile Submission Process Industry Overview Raw Source
FlexFiles Process
Submission Process
Industry Overview
Raw Source
Raw Data - FlexFile Conversion (JSON)
Industry Validation & Submission
ERP
FlexFile SQL DB
Flex File
Data Schema
SUBMIT
IT Solution 1
IT Solution 2a
Industry Submission
One Source
ERP
FlexFile Co-Plan Creation
Industry FlexFile Preparation
CADE Ingestion
Database Development
Data Consumer (Analytics/Query)
Converts Raw Source Into FlexFile Data Schema
Options:
Contractor manually manipulates into data model
Contractor uses own IT solution to produce data model
Contractor uses a CADE developed tool
Third Party Solution [Optimal]:
Automatically export data model from ERP system
Allows industry verification and validation before submission
(CADE Developed Tool)
Multiple Sources
GFI
ERP
Source(s) w/ GFI
FlexFile
Business Process

11. FlexFile Validation Process Government Overview Government Review
FlexFiles Process
Validation Process
Government Overview
Government Review
FlexFile Interface
CADE Database
CADE Analytics
FlexFile SQL DB
Industry Submission
IT Solution 2b
Acceptance
Display
Flex File
Data Schema
FlexFile Co-Plan Creation
Industry FlexFile Preparation
CADE Ingestion
Database Development
Data Consumer (Analytics/Query)
DCARC Validation
Allow other government analysts to review data before acceptance
Make data viewable in CADE
FlexFile
Business Process

12. Concerns vs. Reality Concerns Reality Reality
FlexFiles
Concerns vs. Reality
Concerns
Government is requiring contractors to allocate their source data
Government is requesting EACs at the lowest level
Reality
Contractors are only required to disclose allocation methodology if data are not discretely accounted for
Asking for Forecasts at Completion (FAC); FACs need not come from EVMS and may be tailored to higher levels
Reality
Government is dictating how contractors set up their control accounts
Contractor shall map to every functional category
Government is forcing industry to develop an IT solution to ingest the data file into CADE
Government requires a minimal level of tagging for actual cost accumulation only
The DID requires contractor to map to the most applicable functional category
Government is working with industry and vendors to develop an optimal IT solution. In parallel, CADE IT is developing its own validation tool

13. The Future of Cost & Data Analysis
FlexFiles
What do we need from you?
Become and advocate for the FlexFile on new contracts
Socialize the benefits of the FlexFile
Become early adapters
Allow us to come train
Train government analysts on the benefits and uses of the FlexFile
Train industry on how to report to the new requirements
Identify early adapters that can benefit from a FlexFile
SUMMARY:
FlexFile is the future of Cost & Data Analysis through:
Access to Native Cost Data
Allocation & Mapping Visibility
Seamless Data Integration
Round 3 Pilots [22 Pilots Total] informed our path forward
Process to convert raw source data to the FlexFile Flatfile has been vetted and validated
CSDR
EVM
ICE
SCP
The Future of Cost & Data Analysis

14. Quantity Report (-Q)

15. Quantity Report
Legacy Reporting
1921
1921-2
Quantity information has been provided in three separate forms (1921, , and )
Quantity to date has historically been a calculated field
Most quantity information is provided by a different department than cost data
Financial vs. Management
Some quantity information was provided as a summary remark in the 1921
No consistent way of receiving internal vs. delivered units
1921-1
The CCDR became official policy in 1973, but grew out of similar cost reports in use since at least (F-4A Lot 1). Though the predecessors to the CCDR gathered costs/hours by WBS element, it did not require units by WBS. Contractors instead reported the production sequence First Unit and Last Unit but for the total system applicable to the report. For example, Lot 2 for the F4-A had a First Unit Number of 8 and Last Unit Number of 23.
In 1973, the CCDR added the requirement to report At Completion units for all hardware items in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). It wasn’t until the 2003 CCDR DID update that Units “To Date” were added by WBS.
Since 1973, unit reporting information has remained largely the same. The two major differences today are:
Addition of Units To Date in 2003; and
Contractors no longer provide production sequencing. (In the F-4A Lot 2 example, the contractor reported that the First Unit was 8 and Last Unit was 23. Today, it is up to the analyst to impute that the First Unit for Lot 2 was 8 by observing the fact that Lot 1 had 7 units.)
The existing method for reporting quantities through the CCDR presents several problems, for example:
The CCDR is primarily a financial report coming tasked to business analysts, but it is management/systems engineering that provides the quantity information (particularly for assessing Units To Date)
Quantity information was often provided in the Remarks bundled with other cost accounting information
There was no consistent way for receiving internal vs. delivered units. These were written in to the same field (for example, “5 / 1” representing 5 delivered units and 1 internal unit)
Quantity information has been provided on the same form as costs since the 1970s

16. Quantity Report
Improved Requirement
WBS Element Code
Deliverable/End Item
Delivered Units At Completion
Internal Units At Completion
GFE Units At Completion
Units At Completion
Current update improves on the existing quantity requirements
Same information collected as before with the addition of GFE data and sequencing
Separate form outside of a CCDR allows for a more streamlined submission process
Will collect more accurate quantity information prior to final report
Deliverable/End Item
First Unit Number
Last Unit Number
Delivered/Internal
Concurrent Units
WBS Element Code
Units Completed To Date
Units In Process
Assessed Units To Date
Requirements
Legacy 1921
1921-Q
UNITS AT COMPLETION X
Delivered Units
Internal Units
GFE
ASSESSED UNITS TO DATE
Completed to Date
Quantity In Process
CONCURRENT UNITS
Complete Production Sequence
The 1921-Q update primarily extends existing CCDR requirements for unit reporting. Major differences include:
A separate DID from the FlexFile so that the 1921-Q can be tasked to the management/systems engineering department and the Flexfile tasked to the financial department
Separate fields for delivered and internal Units At Completion. In the past, Contractors would write both delivered and internal units in non-standard form within the same field (for example, “5 / 1” representing 5 delivered units and 1 internal unit). The 1921-Q will have clearly separated fields to collect delivered and internal (internal units being those produced with contract funds but are not intended for delivery to the government, such as test units).
Government Furnished Equipment is added. For example, if the contractor is provided 7 engine units for integration onto an airframe, then the contractor would enter “7” here. Because the costs/hours for GFE are not captured in the reporting contractors FlexFile, this GFE field in the 1921-Q will let analysts know that units were provided to the contractor and they should look for those costs separately.
The production sequencing for End Items coming off the same production line was added back to the 1921-Q as an OPTIONAL requirement. Note that some legacy CCDRs would provide this information, but by-and-large it was discontinued. The production sequencing tells the analyst that, for example, Lot 7 had a First Unit of 108 and a Last Unit of 117, rather than merely the fact that 10 units were produced.
The CCDR had included Units Completed to Date and In Process, but these were often interpreted as “equivalent” units based on Earned Value or some measure of percent complete. Instead, the new 1921-Q will as for physical units to date (both completed and in process) the method for which will be determined by the contractor and described as a remark. For example, a unit may be physically started with the first manufacturing labor work order, and completed when it finishes Quality Assurance.
The 1921-Q only requires Assessed Units To Date by WBS element, and does not require a breakout between End Items. For example, if a 1921-Q Report covers three variants for Lot 1, then the contractor only has to report Units To Date for the entire Lot 1 and requires no segregation by each of the variants. This is a benefit because not all WBS element items have clear segregations by End Item, as they may be common.
Units to date should be an actual count of physically completed units
Quantity Report is closely related to the FlexFile

17. Improved Requirements: November 2017 DID
Quantity Report
Improved Requirements: November 2017 DID
Major DID Changes
Synchronized definitions and references between the DIDs, data models, and Co-Plan
Reorganization of the Data Groups
Allow sequencing quantities to be optional through Co-Plan process for each End-Item as not all End Items may require sequencing (e.g., Kits)
Sequencing was allowed for lower level WBS elements in legacy , but FlexFile does not sequence WBS elements (only End Items)
To Date and In Process to be defined by contractor in the Remarks section
Data Group A
Data Group B
Data Group C
Report Metadata
Approved Plan Number
Submission Event
Period of Performance
Reporting Organization
Date Prepared
Classification
DD FORM 2794 Data Elements
(Co-Plan)
WBS Code/Level/Name
Order/Lot
End Items
Units At Completion
Delivered Units At Completion
Internal Units At Completion
Concurrent Units At Completion
Government Furnished Equipment
At Completion
Remarks
Data Group D
Data Group E
Assessed Units To Date
Units Completed To Date
Units In Process
Remarks
Sequencing
(as required by Co-Plan)
First Unit Number
Last Unit Number
Delivered/Internal
Co-plan talking points
Sequencing talking points
Sequencing is Optional through the Co-Plan process
Provides information about concurrency (e.g., if there are commercial or FMS units being produced concurrent to those in the report)
Assists in performing learning curves and determining rate effects
Avoids the problem of where there were production units not reported on
Avoids aggregation errors across reports
Areas of Evolution

18. FlexFile FlexFile Submission Process Industry Overview Quantity Report
Raw Source
Raw Data Conversion (JSON)
Industry Validation & Submission
FlexFile SQL DB
Flex File
Data Schema
SUBMIT
Financial Systems
IT Solution 1
IT Solution 2a
Industry Submission
FlexFile Co-Plan Creation
Industry FlexFile Preparation
CADE Ingestion
Database Development
Data Consumer (Analytics/Query)
Quantity Report
Raw Source
Raw Data Conversion (JSON)
Industry Validation & Submission
Quantity SQL DB
Quantity Report
Data Schema
SUBMIT
Management Systems
Industry Submission
Notes on how we are handling concept of to date vs. in process
FlexFile
Business Process

19. FlexFile Process Government Overview FlexFile Interface
Quantity Report
Process
Government Overview
FlexFile Interface
Government Review
CADE Database
FlexFile SQL DB
Industry Submission
DCARC
FlexFile Flat File
Acceptance
Flex File
Data Model
Display
FlexFile Co-Plan Creation
Industry FlexFile Preparation
CADE Ingestion
Database Development
Data Consumer (Analytics/Query)
Government Review
Quantity SQL DB
Industry Submission
DCARC
Quantity Flat File
Acceptance
Quantity
Data Model
FlexFile
Business Process

20. Points of Contact Government Lead: Daron Fullwood
FlexFiles
Points of Contact
Government Lead:
Daron Fullwood
Director, Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC)
Office
Cell
FlexFile Lead:
Marc Stephenson
(703) Office