1. Sustainment Issues Affecting the Cost Community ICEAA 2018
Tom Henry
April 11, 2018
OSD CAPE
Cost Assessment

2. Agenda Congressional Direction Policy Updates
Sustainment Cost Data Efforts
Examples of Impacted Programs
Challenges for the Future

3. Congressional Direction: NDAA 2017
Section 807 requires SECDEF to establish sustainment cost goals, among other goals, before program funds are obligated Section 842 amends 10 USC Section 2334 to require that ICEs be full LCCEs, including all costs to operate, maintain, and support a program upon full operational deployment, without regard to funding source or management control Section 844 directed a review and report on sustainment planning in the acquisition process, with focus on the weighing of sustainment considerations in acquisition decision-making Section 849 requires “Sustainment reviews” of each major weapons system NLT 5 years after declaration of IOC; result is a requirement to maintain ICE for remainder of each program House Report required D/CAPE to conduct a comprehensive review of the military Services’ O&S cost data collection efforts and systems and provide a briefing on the results to the HASC.

4. Congressional Direction: NDAA 2018
Major emphasis on “assessment, management, and control of operating and support costs”
Section 834 requires SECDEF to ensure that the defense acquisition system gives ample emphasis to sustainment factors, particularly reliability and maintainability factors affected by weapon system design
Section 835 requires the DoD to negotiate prices for tech data to support the product support strategy of a weapons system prior to EMD or production contract award
Section 836 requires SECDEF to issue and maintain guidance to assess, manage, and control DoD O&S costs for major weapons systems:
Repeals Sec. 832 of NDAA ‘12; places nearly identical language into Title 10 USC
Includes requirements on retention, maintenance, and analysis of O&S cost estimates
Includes policy guidance for “collection, organization, maintenance, and availability” of O&S cost data
Directs D/CAPE’s responsibility for developing and maintaining the DoD’s O&S cost database solution
Primary result of this section is to emphasize this language by placing it into Title 10.

5. Sustainment Cost Policy Update
D/CAPE Cost Data Analysis Improvement Memo (signed January 9, 2017):
Requires annual update to program CARDs, using CAPE templates
Implementation of Sustainment Functional Cost Hour Report
Data collection on government-performed efforts exceeding CSDR thresholds
Serves as underlying guidance/requirement for CAPE sustainment cost data initiatives:
CARD submissions with O&S and software maintenance tabs
Creation of the DD Form
VAMOSC Task Force
Organic industrial base cost IPT with the Army

6. Sustainment Portion of CARD
Programmatic and Phasing Data
Unit Operations Data
Maintenance work distribution (organic v. contracted)
Depot maintenance planning data, by subsystem
Example metadata from “O&S” Tab

7. Sustainment FCHR (DD Form 1921-5)
Similar to the , but focuses on unique sustainment labor cost categories:
-program management
-touch maintenance
-support maintenance

8. VAMOSC Task Force Initiatives
Consists of representatives from the 4 VAMOSC program offices
Army OSMIS, Navy VAMOSC, Air Force AFTOC, and OSD CADE systems
Purpose is to improve O&S data availability, transparency, and integration across the Department of Defense
Provides forum for CAPE to monitor and guide O&S cost data improvement
Initiatives
VAMOSC website linkage
VAMOSC Integration Business Case Analysis (Ongoing-IDA Supported)
Depot maintenance cost data improvement
O&S Future Data Vision

9. Army OIB Cost Data IPT Led by Army’s DASA-Cost and Economics
Goal: fulfill organic cost data requirements by mapping the conversion of depot maintenance data from the Army’s ERP system into its VAMOSC database
Synopsis:
Cost community compiled list of depot data requirements
DASA-CE is conducting site visits to Army depot maintenance facilities
Categorizing cost requirements by degree of data transformation required
Categorization informing ERP resource decisions

10. Impacts: GCV Milestone A
US Army's GCV Program Downgraded To Study Project
Jan. 18, :45AM | By PAUL McLEARY |
defensenews.com
Recent OMA Chart highlighting GCV replacing Bradley
WASHINGTON —Congress has cut $492 million from the White House’s request for the US Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program for fiscal 2014, effectively ending the program as a major acquisition initiative for the ground service.
The White’s House’s original request was $592 million, which was winnowed to $100 million in the omnibus appropriations bill the Senate passed last week and sent to the White House for the president’s signature…..
GCV
Bradley
Army To Sacrifice GCV To Stave Off ‘Creeping Hollowness’
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on November 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Army delays GCV program
By Michael Hoffman Wednesday, January 23rd, :49 am
Army acquisition leaders moved Jan. 16 to delay its top modernization program, the Ground Combat Vehicle, in hopes of making it more viable in the face of expected defense budget cuts.
GCV O&S would have caused significant growth in the Army’s Combat Vehicle Portfolio.

11. Impacts: CRH Milestone B
Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH)
Intended replacement for HH-60G
Milestone B O&S ICE demonstrated:
A relatively flat O&S cost trend for the legacy system
Estimated CRH O&S costs well above pre-EMD Caps (>40%)
Impact of price escalation on platform affordability
Comparison with Pre-EMD Caps
CRH would have delivered limited additional capability, while increasing long-run O&S costs.
O&S Affordability Profiles: HH-60G v. CRH

12. Challenges for the Future
USD (R&E) / USD (A&S) divide
Organic O&S data collection and management
O&S Cost Estimate vs. Budgets vs. Actuals

13. Questions?

14. Backup