FY 2012 Annual Report on Cost Assessment Activities

April 2013
This page intentionally left blank
FY 2012 Annual Report on Cost Assessment 

Activities

Director, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation

April 2013

Preparation of this report/study cost the Department of Defense

a total of approximately $43,000 in Fiscal Year 2013.
This page intentionally left blank
i

Table of Contents

Foreword ..........................................................................................................................................1

Chapter I – Introduction ...................................................................................................................3

Chapter II – Overview of Cost Analysis in DoD..............................................................................5

Overview of Cost Analysis Organizations in DoD....................................................................5

Procedures for Cost Assessments at Milestone Reviews and Other Events..............................5

Cost Assessment Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs 6

Sections 2366a & 2366b Certification Requirements for Major Defense 

Acquisition Programs 7

Cost Assessment Procedures for Major Automated Information Systems 8

Multi-Year Procurement 8

Confidence Levels in Cost Estimates 8

Cost Estimates for Contract Negotiations 8

Cost Analysis Requirements Description 9

DoD Cost Data Collection Systems...........................................................................................9

Summary....................................................................................................................................9

Chapter III – DoD Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012...........................................................11

DoD Milestone Review Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012............................................11

Remarks about Specific Programs 16

CAPE Independent Cost Estimates for Multi-Year Procurement............................................16

DoD Critical Unit Cost (Nunn-McCurdy) Breaches in FY 2012 ............................................18

Other Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012.........................................................................20

DoD Cost Analysis Symposium 20

Missile Defense Agency Support 20

National Nuclear Security Administration Support 21

Chapter IV – The Look Forward....................................................................................................23

Organizations and Human Resources......................................................................................23

Policies and Procedures...........................................................................................................23

Cost Data Systems...................................................................................................................25

Tracking to Approved Estimate—PPBE and Acquisition .......................................................26

Cost Indexes.............................................................................................................................26

Cost Analysis Education and Training.....................................................................................27

Summary..................................................................................................................................27

Appendix A Cost Analysis Organizations in DoD...................................................................... A-1

Appendix B Major Defense Acquisition Program Unit Cost Reporting ......................................B-1

Appendix C Major Automated Information System Reporting ...................................................C-1

Appendix D DoD Cost Data Collection Systems........................................................................ D-1
ii

Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................................E-1

TABLES

Table 1. Major Acquisition Program Milestone or Other Review Cost Assessment Activities in 

FY 2012........................................................................................................................13

Table 2. Cost Analyses for Multi-Year Procurement Contract Awards in FY 2012..................17

Table 3. Nunn-McCurdy Critical Unit Cost Breaches in FY 2012 ............................................19

Table B-1. Nunn-McCurdy Breach Thresholds............................................................................B-1
FOREWORD 

The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) of2009, Public Law 111-23, section 101, 

established the position ofDirector of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation {CAPE) in the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense {OSD). The Director is responsible for ensuring that the cost 

estimation and cost analysis processes of the Department of Defense {DoD) provide accurate 

information and realistic estimates of cost for the DoD acquisition programs. 

. WSARA requires the Director, CAPE to report to the Congress annually on the cost estimation 

and cost analysis activities that the Department conducted during the previous year, along with 

the progress the Department has made in improving the accuracy of its cost estimates and 

analyses. This fourth edition of the annual report describes the progress in developing and 

implementing plans responsive to the goals for cost estimation and assessment practices 

mandated by WSARA. 

In light of the current uncertain fiscal environment, the need for thorough analyses and rigorous 

cost assessments has never been greater. Since my confirmation in 2009, I have seen the overall 

quality of the cost estimates prepared by the military departments, as well as CAPE, continue to 

improve and provide more relevant support to decision authorities. Work continues to make the 

cost assessment process more efficient and timely. Our commitment to continually improving our 

processes requires right-sized m~npower, relevant training, and investment in analytic methods, 

tools, and data. All of these efforts are described in this report. 

Progress towards achieving the WSARA objectives is taking place incrementally, and will 

continue for years. Our progress in improving the Department's cost assessment process will 

continue to be described in subsequent editions of this report. 

\~d\A_lp Christine H. Fox 

Director 

Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation 

1 
This page intentionally left blank
3

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

The Office of CAPE provides independent analysis and advice to the Secretary of Defense and other 

senior officials on a wide range of issues concerning (1) cost estimation and cost analysis for major DoD 

acquisition programs (both Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) and Major Automated 

Information System (MAIS) programs); (2) the DoD Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution 

(PPBE) system; (3) resource decisions relating to military requirements; (4) analyses of alternatives to 

ensure that DoD considers the full range of program and non-materiel solutions; (5) evaluations of 

alternative military force structure, plans, and systems; and (6) the development of improved analytical 

skills and competencies within the cost assessment and program evaluation workforce of the Department.

This report is concerned with the first topic—cost estimation and cost analysis.

Section 101(b) of WSARA1 requires that CAPE submit an annual report to the Congress on an 

assessment of:

(A) the extent to which each of the military departments and Defense Agencies have 

complied with policies, procedures, and guidance issued by the Director with regard to 

the preparation of cost estimates for major defense acquisition programs and major 

automated information systems;

(B) the overall quality of cost estimates prepared by each of the military departments 

and Defense Agencies for major defense acquisition programs and major automated 

information system programs; and

(C) any consistent differences in methodology or approach among the cost estimates 

prepared by the military departments, the Defense Agencies, and the Director.

The organization of this report is as follows:

• Chapter II provides an overview of cost analysis in the Department. It describes the range of cost 

analysis organizations throughout the Department and explains the process for preparing cost 

estimates that support the defense acquisition process. Also, it identifies the main DoD cost data 

collection systems. 

• Chapter III reviews the Department’s FY 2012 cost estimation and cost analysis activities 

associated with MDAPs and MAIS programs. These activities include independent cost 

estimates (ICEs), augmented by assessments of military department and Defense Agency cost 

estimates, which inform the DoD decision authorities at milestone reviews and at other 

important events. This chapter also summarizes the degree to which DoD cost estimation and 

assessment activities in FY 2012 complied with established procedures, and discusses overall 

quality and any consistent differences in methodology among the cost estimates.

 1 The annual report requirement of WSARA section 101(b) is codified in section 2334(f) of title 10, United States 

Code.
4

• Chapter IV describes the status of several key ongoing initiatives that will ensure that the cost 

assessment and cost estimating functions for the Department will change as required to meet the 

expanded roles and responsibilities established by WSARA and the needs of the Department. 

These initiatives address a wide range of issues and concerns, including organizations and 

human resources, cost estimating policy or procedure changes, cost data systems, and education 

and training opportunities for the DoD cost community. 

The CAPE long-term vision is to ensure that the DoD cost estimating community is provided the 

necessary guidance, authorities, and resources to ensure that program cost and schedule estimates 

are properly prepared and considered in the Department’s deliberations on all MDAPs and MAIS 

programs. The progress and challenges in achieving this vision will continue to be described in 

future editions of this report.
5

CHAPTER II – OVERVIEW OF COST ANALYSIS IN DOD

This chapter identifies the organizations, policies, procedures, and supporting data systems for cost 

estimation in place throughout DoD. Chapter IV of this report provides a description of efforts to continue 

to strengthen these institutions to meet the requirements of WSARA.

This report assumes a modest familiarity with the defense acquisition process on the part of the reader. 

Readers in need of an introduction to the defense acquisition process are encouraged to refer to the 

Defense Acquisition Guidebook (see https://dag.dau.mil).

Overview of Cost Analysis Organizations in DoD

There are cost organizations throughout DoD—in OSD, at the headquarters of the DoD Components 

(military departments and Defense Agencies), and in Components’ field organizations. DoD has a wide 

range of cost organizations, with each group having a unique but complementary role in support of the 

defense acquisition process and the broader operations of the Department. 

At the OSD level, the Director, CAPE is responsible for providing ICEs, for both MDAPs and MAIS 

programs, when the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) for a program is the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)). Also, the Director, CAPE establishes 

policies for preparation and review of DoD Component cost estimates for other MDAPs and MAIS 

programs. 

Each military department headquarters has its own Service Cost Agency. These cost estimating Agencies 

provide ICEs when acquisition oversight is delegated to the Component and the MDA is the Component 

Head or Component Acquisition Executive. Also, the Agencies support other important cost analyses and 

provide policy guidance unique to each of the military departments. The Service Cost Agencies reside in 

the financial management organizations of their military departments, and are outside their military 

department’s acquisition chain of command.

There are also many field-level cost organizations. These organizations provide resources to support 

higher headquarters cost estimates and analyses, and they also provide assistance to support day-to-day 

operations of program offices and similar entities. Examples of such activities include evaluation of 

contractor proposals and should-cost analyses; support to competitive source selections; cost estimates in 

support of the programming and budgeting processes; and cost estimates used in specific analytic studies, 

such as systems engineering design trades or analyses of alternatives. Field-level elements of the cost 

community workforce typically possess important specialized cost and technical experience unique to 

specific system types or commodity groups--such as satellites, submarines, or tactical missiles.

Appendix A provides a brief description of each Service Cost Agency and field-level cost organization. 

Procedures for Cost Assessments at Milestone Reviews and Other Events

This section provides a description of DoD cost assessment procedures for MDAPs and MAIS programs, 

many of which have been updated or added after enactment of WSARA.
6

Cost Assessment Procedures for Major Defense Acquisition Programs

Public law (section 2334 of title 10, United States Code) requires that an independent estimate of the 

life-cycle cost for an MDAP be prepared and presented to the MDA before the approval to proceed with 

Milestone A or B, or any decision to enter low-rate initial production or full-rate production.2 At these 

key milestone reviews, when the MDA is USD(AT&L), the ICE is prepared by the Director, CAPE. 

When the MDA is delegated to the DoD Component, the ICE supporting a milestone decision is provided 

by the applicable Service Cost Agency or the Defense Agency equivalent, and subsequently reviewed by 

CAPE. In practice, an ICE for a program is conducted by using a combination of historical precedence, 

results of extensive site visits, and the actual performance of that program to date. It is a careful, 

painstaking analysis that looks at all aspects of a program, including risks.

DoD policy and procedures for such ICEs are prescribed in DoD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the 

Defense Acquisition System. After the enactment of WSARA, DoD updated these procedures in 

Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-027 – Implementation of the Weapon Systems Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2009 (see https://acc.dau.mil/wsara).

One important element of current DoD policy for MDAPs requires the Component to establish a formal 

position on the estimated cost of the program and, furthermore, to commit to fully fund the program 

consistent with the Component’s cost position. In practice, the Component typically establishes its cost 

position by performing a Component-wide corporate review, led by the Service Cost Agency or the 

Defense Agency equivalent, after consideration of a program office cost estimate and preparation of a 

Component ICE or assessment. 

WSARA also revised the procedures for the certification of an MDAP that experienced sufficient cost 

growth to trigger a critical unit cost (Nunn-McCurdy) breach (as defined in section 2433 of title 10, 

United States Code). Upon such a breach, USD(AT&L) can certify that the program meets certain criteria

(set forth in section 2433a of title 10, United States Code), in which case the program can continue, or it 

may be terminated. One element of the required certification is the reasonableness of the new estimates of 

program unit costs. The determination that new program unit costs are reasonable is made by the Director, 

CAPE, and certified by USD(AT&L). As part of a standard business practice, CAPE prepares its own 

ICE that is used as a benchmark to support the assessment of reasonableness of the new unit cost 

estimates. Also, the CAPE ICE report includes a quantitative assessment of the factors, both internal and 

external to the program, which led to the unit cost growth relative to the original baseline estimate. This 

assessment is provided to the Director of Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses (PARCA) 

to assist in the assessment of root causes of cost growth (e.g., failures in processes or decision-making). A 

review of the FY 2012 critical unit cost breaches and certifications, and supporting cost assessment 

activities, is provided in Chapter III. Appendix B provides a description of the procedures for unit cost 

reporting, and the criteria for a Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach.

 2 Section 2344 also requires an independent cost estimate in advance of a certification of an MDAP under a critical 

unit-cost breach; a report for a critical change on a MAIS; and at any other time considered appropriate by the 

Director, CAPE or upon the request of USD(AT&L).
7

Sections 2366a & 2366b Certification Requirements for Major Defense Acquisition Programs

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Public Law 109-163 established a

requirement that the MDA certify that several criteria are met by any MDAP approaching Milestone B 

(permission to enter Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)). To meet this requirement, the 

MDA must sign a certification memorandum for the record that affirms that the program meets the 

specified criteria (concerning program affordability, technological maturity, and other considerations). 

This memorandum is then submitted to the congressional defense committees with the program’s next 

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR). The specific certification criteria were strengthened and expanded in 

subsequent legislation, with additional criteria concerning reasonable cost and schedule estimates and full 

funding. Moreover, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 110-181,

established additional certification criteria for MDAPs approaching Milestone A.

3 Further, criteria for

both sections 2366a and 2366b were added by section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81. The current milestone certification criteria are codified in 

sections 2366a and 2366b of title 10, United States Code.

Some elements of the certification criteria for both Milestone A and Milestone B approval address the 

adequacy of program cost estimates. Since enactment of WSARA, the determination of the adequacy of 

program cost estimates is made by the MDA—with the concurrence of the Director, CAPE—after 

consideration of the appropriate ICE.

Before enactment of WSARA, the Department was up to date in meeting the section 2366a and 2366b 

certification requirements. The certification process before WSARA applied to MDAPs as they proceeded 

through Milestone A or Milestone B; it did not apply retroactively to MDAPs that had passed either 

milestone before the sections 2366a/b certification requirements were established. WSARA, however, not 

only expanded the sections 2366a/b certification criteria, but also retroactively applied them to MDAPs 

that had yet to reach Milestone C, had passed their Milestone A or Milestone B prior to the enactment of

the certification requirements, and were not certified in accordance with the appropriate Milestone A or 

Milestone B criteria. This change created a significant backlog of MDAPs that need to obtain the 

certifications required by sections 2366a/b. These retroactive certifications are referred to as “catch-up” 

certifications.

For the MDAPs that were already past Milestone C at the time of WSARA enactment, there was some 

degree of ambiguity about the requirements for retroactive certifications. Based on a request by DoD, the 

Congress included a clarification that 2366a/b certifications were not required for MDAPs already past 

Milestone C approval in section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 

Public Law 111-383. More recently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Public 

Law 112-239, repealed the requirement for retroactive 2366b certifications for those programs that 

received Milestone B approval before January 2006 (which is when the requirement for 2366b

certification was originally established) but had not yet reached Milestone C. 

Previous editions of this report described the status of the Department’s efforts to reduce the backlog of 

catch-up certifications. With the recent legislative changes removing the requirement for these 

certifications, this reporting is no longer necessary and will be discontinued.

 3 The Milestone A decision is approval for a program to enter the Technology Development phase.
8

Cost Assessment Procedures for Major Automated Information Systems

WSARA specifies that CAPE is responsible for preparing an ICE for any MAIS program that has 

experienced a Critical Change (as defined in Appendix C) if the MDA is USD(AT&L). CAPE may also 

prepare an ICE for a MAIS program at any other time considered appropriate by the Director, CAPE, or 

upon the request of USD(AT&L). In addition, for the MAIS programs for which acquisition oversight has 

been delegated to the Component, CAPE is responsible for establishing policies for preparation and 

review of Component cost estimates at milestone reviews, and for revised program cost estimates in 

support of certification of a MAIS program that has experienced a Critical Change.

Multi-Year Procurement

Public law (section 2306b of title 10, United States Code) establishes several criteria that must be 

satisfied and certified by the Secretary of Defense prior to the award for a multi-year contract for a 

defense acquisition program. Some of these criteria (concerning substantial savings, realistic cost 

estimates, and availability of funding) must be supported by a CAPE cost analysis of the proposed multiyear procurement strategy and contract structure, which includes a comparison of the estimated costs of 

multi-year and annual contract awards. The analysis is based on actual cost data and experience to date, as 

well as an evaluation of cost realism in the contractor’s proposals. A review of the FY 2012 cost 

assessment activities associated with approval of multi-year procurement contracts is provided in Chapter

III. 

Confidence Levels in Cost Estimates

WSARA, as originally enacted, required (1) a statement concerning the confidence level used in 

establishing a cost estimate of an MDAP or a MAIS program, (2) the rationale for selecting the specific 

confidence level used in the estimate, and (3) the justification for selecting a lower confidence level if it 

were less than 80 percent. The WSARA requirement for confidence levels in cost estimates was modified 

by section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383

(section 2334 of title 10, United States Code). With this modification, there is no longer a requirement to 

justify the choice of a confidence level that is lower than 80 percent. Today, the legal requirement is to 

select a confidence level such that it provides a high degree of confidence that the program can be 

completed without the need for significant adjustment to program budgets. In general, CAPE satisfies this 

requirement by ensuring that all of its cost estimates are built on a product-oriented Work Breakdown 

Structure, based on historical actual cost information whenever possible, and most importantly, based on 

conservative assumptions that are consistent with actual demonstrated contractor and government 

performance for a series of acquisition programs in which the Department has been successful.

Cost Estimates for Contract Negotiations

Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Public Law 111-383 (section 

2334 of title 10, United States Code), established that for MDAPs and MAIS programs, cost estimates 

developed for baselines and other program purposes are not to be used for the purpose of contract 

negotiations or obligation of funds. Section 811 also states that cost analyses and targets developed for the 

purpose of contract negotiations shall be based on the government’s reasonable expectation of successful 

contractor performance in accordance with the contractor’s proposal and previous experience. As noted in 

Chapter IV, proper policy and procedures are being developed—as part of the Department’s 
9

“Should-Cost” initiative—to guide the development of cost estimates for contract negotiations, and to 

ensure that ICEs are not used as the basis for negotiations on individual contracts.

Cost Analysis Requirements Description

CAPE requires and provides guidance on the technical content and use of a document known as the Cost 

Analysis Requirements Description (CARD). The CARD provides information on the acquisition 

program that is used in preparation of both the Component cost position and the CAPE ICE. The CARD 

describes the key technical, programmatic, and operational characteristics of an acquisition program. The 

foundation of a sound and credible cost estimate is a well-defined program, and the CARD is used to 

provide that foundation. 

DoD Cost Data Collection Systems

Systematic and institutionalized cost data collection and validation is critical to the preparation and 

support of credible cost estimates. DoD has three primary collection systems for cost data for MDAPs. 

The Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) system serves as the primary source of acquisition cost 

data for major contracts and subcontracts associated with MDAPs. The Earned Value Management 

(EVM) Central Repository is used to collect and archive EVM reporting documents (such as Contract 

Performance Reports, Integrated Master Schedules, and Contract Funds Status Reports). The Visibility 

and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) systems collect historical operating and 

support (O&S) costs for fielded major weapon systems. Appendix D provides additional details 

concerning all of these data collection systems, and Chapter IV discusses current CAPE efforts to 

improve them.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the cost assessment organizations, policies and procedures, and data collection 

systems in DoD. These provide the foundation on which the Department is building as it continues to 

implement WSARA and strengthen the cost assessment institutions. The initiatives that constitute this 

implementation and the vision of the changes that are being made are described in Chapter IV of this 

report.
This page intentionally left blank
11

CHAPTER III – DOD COST ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES IN FY 2012

This chapter provides a summary of the DoD cost estimates and cost analyses that were made in FY 2012

in support of milestone reviews, award of multi-year procurement contracts, and certifications following 

unit cost (“Nunn-McCurdy”) breaches. 

DoD Milestone Review Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012

Table 1 provides a summary of the milestone or other review cost assessment activities in FY 2012. For 

each major acquisition program with a milestone review or other event, Table 1 identifies the program 

name and acronym, the responsible Component, the supporting cost estimate(s) or analyses presented to 

the MDA, and the review event being supported.

There were 13 milestone reviews and six other events supported by cost assessment activities in FY 2012 

(excluding several cost assessment activities associated with classified programs, which are not discussed 

in this unclassified report). All of the events were supported by the appropriate cost estimates or analyses 

that complied with the requirements of WSARA and the established cost assessment procedures described 

in Chapter II. In particular, in most cases each of the milestone reviews was supported by (1) a 

Component cost position, and (2) the appropriate CAPE or Service Cost Agency ICE.

The overall quality of the cost estimates prepared by each of the military departments continued to 

improve this year due to increased rigor. As noted in Chapter II, CAPE has instituted a policy―currently 

in place for all MDAPs—requiring that a signed, dated service cost estimate and position must be 

delivered to CAPE prior to delivery of an ICE to support each major milestone review of the Defense 

Acquisition Board (DAB). Also, the military department’s financial and acquisition communities must 

provide a statement affirming their commitment to fully fund the program to the Service Cost Position 

during the preparation of the next Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and Future Years Defense 

Program (FYDP).

The quality of the cost estimates for MDAPs provided by the military departments also continued to 

improve this year due to better data. This is largely attributable to improved availability of actual cost 

information for DoD programs as a result of the long-term initiative to collect contractor cost and 

software data reports, and the long-term efforts of each of the military departments to improve the 

collection of actual operating and support cost information through the VAMOSC systems. Further 

information about DoD cost data collection systems is provided in Appendix D.

Finally, there are no consistent differences in methodology or approach between the cost estimates 

prepared by the military departments and CAPE. Generally, the approach employed by the military 

departments is evolving to become more similar to that employed in CAPE: collect actual cost 

information from ongoing and historical programs; use that information to prepare cost and schedule 

forecasts for new programs or programs proceeding to the next milestone in the acquisition process; and 

review the actual cost information collected, as each individual program proceeds, to update and adjust 

the cost and schedule forecasts for the program to reflect actual experience. As the Department improves 

the systematic collection of actual cost information over time, smaller differences between the cost and 

schedule forecasts of the military departments and CAPE are expected in the future.
12

For MAIS programs, due to resource constraints, CAPE involvement in cost estimates has been limited to 

those programs that experience a “Critical Change,” as defined in statute (described in Appendix C), 

when USD(AT&L) is the MDA. In addition, cost reporting for the MAIS programs currently is poor, and 

both quality and compliance need to be improved. There remains much work to be done to improve the 

management and preparation of cost estimates for the approximately 44 MAIS programs now in the DoD 

portfolio. Note that in FY 2012 there were no MAIS Critical Change certifications where USD(AT&L) 

was the MDA.
13

Table 1. Major Acquisition Program Milestone or Other Review Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012

Program Name Acronym Component Program Type Cost Assessment Activity Activity Date Supported Event Event Date

Guided Multiple Launch Rocket

System Alternative Warhead

GMLRS AW Army ACAT IC DASA-CE Independent Cost 

Estimate

14-Oct-11 Milestone B 19-Feb-12

Army Service Cost Position 22-Nov-11

Paladin Integrated Management PIM Army ACAT IC Army Service Cost Position 2-Dec-11 Post-Milestone B APB 

Approval

30-Mar-12

Stryker Nuclear, Biological and 

Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle

Stryker 

NBCRV

Army ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

7-Dec-11 Full-Rate Production Decision 15-Dec-11

Army Service Cost Position 29-Nov-11

Common Infrared Countermeasures CIRCM Army ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

12-Dec-11 Milestone A 28-Dec-11

Army Service Cost Position 10-Aug-11

B61 Mod 12 Life Extension Program 

Tail Kit Assembly

B61 Mod 12 

LEP TKA

Air Force ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

10-Feb-12 Milestone A 22-Feb-12

Air Force Service Cost 

Position

31-Jan-12

Chemical Demilitarization –

Assembled Chemical Weapons 

Alternatives

Chem Demil 

- ACWA

DoD ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

16-Feb-12 Milestone B 21-Mar-12

Joint Program Office Cost 

Estimate

6-Jun-11
14

Table 1. Major Acquisition Program Milestone or Other Review Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012 (cont.)

Program Name Acronym Component Program Type Cost Assessment Activity Activity Date Supported Event Event Date

Military Global Positioning System 

(GPS) User Equipment

MGUE Air Force ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

17-Feb-12 Milestone A 9-Apr-12

Air Force Service Cost 

Position

3-Feb-12

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft JSF Navy/Air 

Force, 

USMC 

ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

9-Mar-12 2366b Recertification 28-Mar-12

Joint Program Office Cost 

Estimate

7-Mar-12

Multi-Functional Information Distribution 

System Joint Tactical Radio System

MIDS JTRS Navy ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

12-Mar-12 Full-Rate Production Decision 4-Apr-12

Navy Service Cost Position 29-Feb-12

Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar G/ATOR USMC ACAT IC Navy Service Cost Position 6-Apr-12 Post-Milestone B APB Approval 22-May-12

Advanced Threat Infrared 

Countermeasures

ATIRCM Army ACAT IC DASA-CE Independent Cost 

Estimate

27-Apr-12 Milestone C 13-Aug-11

Integrated Air and Missile Defense IAMD Army ACAT ID Updated CAPE Independent 

Cost Estimate

7-Jun-12 Information Paper to USD(AT&L) N/A

Updated Army Service Cost 

Position

27-Apr-12
15

Table 1. Major Acquisition Program Milestone or Other Review Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012 (cont.)

Program Name Acronym Component Program Type Cost Assessment Activity Activity Date Supported Event Event Date

Ship to Shore Connector SSC Navy ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

25-Jun-12 Milestone B 5-Jul-12

Navy Service Cost Position 15-Jun-12

Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided 

Missile

AARGM Navy ACAT IC Navy Service Cost Position 31-Jul-12 Full-Rate Production 

Decision

20-Aug-12

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle JLTV Army/USMC ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

8-Aug-12 Milestone B 20-Aug-12

Joint Service Cost Position 12-Jul-12

Apache Block 3A Remanufacture 

Program

AB3A 

Reman

Army ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

15-Aug-12 Full-Rate Production 

Decision

5-Sep-12

Army Service Cost Position 12-Jul-12

B-2 Extremely High Frequency 

Satellite Capability Increment 1

B-2 EHF 

Inc 1

Air Force ACAT IC Air Force Service Cost Position 22-Aug-12 Post-Milestone C APB 

Approval

20-Sep-12

Common Remotely Operated Weapon 

Station

CROWS Army ACAT IC DASA-CE Independent Cost 

Estimate

13-Sep-12 Full-Rate Production 

Decision

28-Sep-12

LHA 6 America Class Amphibious 

Assault Ship

LHA 6 Navy ACAT ID Updated CAPE Independent 

Cost Estimate

25-Sep-12 Information Paper to 

USD(AT&L)

N/A

The term “ACAT ID” refers to an MDAP where the MDA is USD(AT&L).

The term “ACAT IC” refers to an MDAP where acquisition oversight has been delegated to the Component.
16

Remarks about Specific Programs

• For the Chemical Demilitarization – Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives, there 

was no Service Cost Position for this program because it is an OSD managed activity.

• The CAPE ICE for the F-35 supported the restoration of the 2366b certification for the 

program. The F-35 lost its original 2366b certification status following the critical unitcost (Nunn-McCurdy) breach that occurred in 2010.

• The revised CAPE ICE for the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense program was 

requested by USD(AT&L) to reflect a restructure to the program proposed by the Army 

in February 2012. 

• The revised CAPE ICE for the Navy LHA 6 program was requested by USD(AT&L) to 

reflect the addition of a second ship (LHA 7) and other fact-of-life changes.

CAPE Independent Cost Estimates for Multi-Year Procurement

As noted in Chapter II, CAPE provides an independent cost analysis of a proposed multi-year 

procurement strategy and contract structure to support the Department’s certification of 

substantial savings and other criteria, prior to the award of a multi-year contract for a defense 

acquisition program. Table 2 provides a summary of the cost assessment activities in FY 2012 

supporting the award of multi-year procurement contracts. Table 2 identifies the program name 

and acronym, the responsible Component, the supporting cost estimate(s) or analyses, and the 

date of the Department’s certification.

For aircraft program multi-year procurement contracts approved and negotiated during the past 

three years, DoD has achieved savings in the range of 10 to 18 percent through the use of 

multi-year procurement contracts, relative to the costs of using annual procurement contracts.

These savings are measured relative to a CAPE baseline cost estimate, based on use of annual 

contracting strategies, of approximately $28 billion in procurement costs for five major aircraft 

programs. The use of multi-year procurement contracts for these programs will provide 

substantial savings of acquisition resources to the military departments involved in the programs 

during the next five years.
17

Table 2. Cost Analyses for Multi-Year Procurement Contract Awards in FY 2012

Program Name Acronym Component Program Type Cost Assessment Activity Activity Date Supported Event Event Date

Ch-47F Improved Cargo Helicopter CH-47F Army ACAT IC CAPE Independent Estimate of 

Savings for Multi-Year 

Procurement Contract

14-Feb-12 USD(AT&L) certification 1-Mar-12

V-22 Osprey V-22 Navy ACAT IC CAPE Independent Estimate of 

Savings for Multi-Year 

Procurement Contract

17-Feb-12 USD(AT&L) certification 1-Mar-12

Virginia Class Submarine SSN 774 Navy ACAT ID CAPE Independent Estimate of 

Savings for Multi-Year 

Procurement Contract

23-Feb-12 USD(AT&L) certification 1-Mar-12

DDG 51 Guided Missile Destroyer DDG 51 Navy ACAT ID CAPE Independent Estimate of 

Savings for Multi-Year 

Procurement Contract

23-Feb-12 USD(AT&L) certification 1-Mar-12
18

DoD Critical Unit Cost (Nunn-McCurdy) Breaches in FY 2012

Table 3 provides a summary of the cost assessment activities supporting certification decisions 

associated with critical unit cost (Nunn-McCurdy) breaches in FY 2012. For each major 

acquisition program with a critical breach, Table 3 identifies the program name and acronym, the

responsible Component, the supporting cost estimate(s) or analyses presented to the 

USD(AT&L), and the date of the critical breach certification. Descriptions of unit cost 

(Nunn-McCurdy) reporting and the certification process associated with unit cost breaches are 

provided in Appendix B.

There were two critical breach certifications in FY 2012. Both of them were supported by the 

appropriate cost estimates and analyses that complied with the requirements of WSARA and the 

established cost assessment procedures described in Chapter II. For the critical breach

certifications, each event was supported by (1) a new estimate of program unit cost, as reflected 

in a revised SAR, and (2) the corresponding CAPE ICE for program unit cost.
19

Table 3. Nunn-McCurdy Critical Unit Cost Breaches in FY 2012

Program Name Acronym Component Program Type Cost Assessment Activity Activity Date Supported Event Event Date

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile 

Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System

JLENS Army ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

December 2011 SAR

16-May-12 Critical Unit-Cost Breach 

Certification

24-May-12

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles EELV Air Force ACAT ID CAPE Independent Cost 

Estimate

3-Jul-12 Critical Unit-Cost Breach 

Certification

12-Jul-12

March 2012 SAR
20

Other Cost Assessment Activities in FY 2012

DoD Cost Analysis Symposium

The 45th annual DoD Cost Analysis Symposium (DoDCAS), which is sponsored by CAPE, was held in 

February 2012. The theme of the symposium was “Cost Analysis and the Downturn.” The plenary 

sessions and roundtable discussions were supported by several current and former senior DoD officials, 

who discussed the impact of a reduced budget on DoD and the status of the Department in implementing 

WSARA. Four concurrent track sessions were held that addressed:

• The New Budget Environment: This track consisted of a series of presentations from noted 

professionals on the effects of Federal budget reductions on DoD and the national security 

complex.

• Tools and Data: This track focused on the tools and data available to the cost community.

• Post-WSARA Assessments: This track consisted of a series of presentations that addressed how 

WSARA has changed acquisition procedures and cost analysis.

• Operating and Support Costs: This track provided an in-depth look at using operating and support 

cost estimates to make program decisions throughout the life cycle.

The papers presented at the symposium will be archived at the CAPE web site (https://www.cape.osd.mil

“DoDCAS”).

Missile Defense Agency Support

CAPE received requests from both the Congress and the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in 2012 to 

assess several MDA programs. As MDA operates largely outside of DoD 5000 regulations, CAPE’s cost 

assessment responsibilities are typically limited to supporting MDA’s production decisions as defined by 

the initial use of Procurement funds. Development efforts and systems acquired using RDT&E funds are 

typically outside of CAPE’s cost assessment responsibilities. To support a production decision on 

Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IB initially planned for FY 2012, CAPE was asked by MDA to develop 

an ICE for the SM-3 Block IB production buy. Shortly following that request, CAPE was asked by the 

House Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Subcommittee Chairman to develop ICEs for both the 

European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) and Precision Tracking Space System (PTSS) efforts. As 

the SM-3 Block IB missile procurement was effectively a subset of the EPAA effort and as testing issues 

delayed the SM-3 Block IB production decision, the MDA request for an ICE became subordinate to the 

Congressional taskings. By its nature, EPAA comprises elements of several MDA programs including 

Aegis Ashore and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), several SM-3 variants, the AN/TPY-2 radar 

and modifications to the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC)

system. CAPE completed its ICE of the EPAA system in October 2012, and the results provided a 

foundation for discussions on EPAA leading up to the preparation of the FY 2014 President’s Budget 

request.
21

CAPE completed its PTSS review in November 2012, although the report is still in draft form. CAPE’s 

PTSS analysis was highly influential in the future plans for PTSS reflected in the FY 2014 President’s 

Budget request. CAPE expended more than 6,000 man-hours during the yearlong effort to support 

development of the EPAA and the PTSS cost estimates.

National Nuclear Security Administration Support

What began with a request from the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC), chaired by USD(AT&L), for 

CAPE to assess the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) cost estimate for the B61 Life 

Extension Program (LEP), grew in FY 2012 into a very large effort to lead the restructuring of the work 

NNSA is undertaking to modernize its weapons and facilities. The result of this effort will be apparent 

when the FY 2014 President's Budget request is transmitted to the Congress. Partially in response to this 

year's endeavor, section 3162 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Public 

Law 112-239, greatly enhanced CAPE's role in reviewing NNSA's weapon modernization and facility 

recapitalization activities. CAPE directed nearly 8,000 man-hours in FY 2012 in support of NNSA, and 

this support is expected to continue to be a large effort in the future. It is currently planned to have NNSA 

personnel augment CAPE staff in preparation of future ICEs for NNSA activities. 
This page intentionally left blank
23

CHAPTER IV – THE LOOK FORWARD

WSARA introduced major changes to the DoD cost estimation processes. Since its enactment, CAPE has 

made significant progress in implementing these changes. This chapter discusses the status and future 

plans for several key initiatives that collectively will provide this implementation.

Organizations and Human Resources

WSARA requires the Director, CAPE to lead the development of improved analytical skills and 

competencies within the cost assessment and program evaluation workforce of the Department. However, 

as noted in Chapter II, the cost estimating workforce is distributed among several organizations 

throughout the Department. Consequently, identifying and remedying issues with the size, education, 

experience and organization of the DoD cost estimating workforce requires an integrated and 

collaborative effort, with the Director, CAPE as the leader and primary advocate for the entire DoD cost 

community. 

Efforts toward that end began last year with activities to gather data on the workforce size, grade, and 

demographics, as well as experience and education levels. Beyond that, there is interest in measuring 

projected workload volume and content (i.e., what the cost assessment community is actually doing), to 

help assess whether scarce resources are properly focused on strategic priorities. However, these efforts 

are currently suspended, due to the tremendous uncertainty in the projected DoD budget and personnel 

levels. OSD and the military departments are for the most part currently operating under a hiring freeze, 

and face the possibility of civilian furloughs or reductions. CAPE intends to resume these activities next 

year if there is more stability in the budget environment. Workforce management will be more critical in 

the future as the cost community faces downsizing pressures along with the rest of the Department.

Policies and Procedures 

WSARA states that the Director, CAPE—in consultation with other officials of OSD, the military 

departments, and Defense Agencies—shall prescribe policies and procedures for the conduct of cost 

estimation and cost analysis for the acquisition programs of the DoD. These policies and procedures have 

general applicability to all acquisition programs, although the implementation details refer specifically to 

MDAPs and MAIS programs. 

The guidance for cost assessment policies and procedures will be distributed through a series of formal 

issuances (directives, instructions, publications, manuals, and guides) and policy memoranda. The status 

of these issuances is as follows:
24

DoD Directive 5105.84, Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (DCAPE), was approved 

on May 11, 2012 and serves as the CAPE charter. The Directive defines overall CAPE responsibilities 

and authorities in the PPBE, acquisition, and requirements processes. Regarding cost assessment, the 

Directive establishes the Director CAPE as the principal official for independent cost estimation and cost 

analysis for the acquisition programs of DoD. The Directive replaced two earlier Directives: DoD 

Directive 5141.01, Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E); and DoD Directive 5000.04, 

Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG).

The Directive is available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510584p.pdf.

CAPE is now working to complete DoD Manual 5000.04-M, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures. 

This Manual will be the primary vehicle for implementing the cost assessment provisions of WSARA. In 

particular, it will provide guidance to the military departments and defense agencies concerning the 

preparation, presentation and documentation of life-cycle cost estimates for defense acquisition programs. 

This year, CAPE completed sections of the Manual concerning (1) guidance for the content of the CARD 

that is used to describe the technical and programmatic characteristics of a program for the purpose of 

preparing a cost estimate, (2) a description of standard life-cycle cost terms and definitions that will be 

used throughout DoD for cost estimation and cost data collection, and (3) an overview of DoD cost data 

collection (CSDR and VAMOSC). CAPE is now working on the remaining sections, which will address 

the procedures for reviews of MDAP and MAIS programs.

DoD Manual 5000.04-M-1, Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual, concerns cost data 

collection. This Manual, which was approved on November 4, 2011, is described in the next section of 

this chapter.

In March 2012, CAPE prepared a draft of an update to the 2007 O&S Cost-Estimating Guide. This guide 

discusses the role of O&S cost estimates and analyses in support of the defense acquisition process 

throughout the program life cycle. The guide also provides the standard OSD O&S cost element structure. 

The cost element structure is a well-organized and defined taxonomy of O&S cost elements that are used 

for both cost estimation and cost data collection. The 2012 update provides stronger emphasis that O&S 

considerations should be analyzed and presented in order to play a key and actionable role in supporting 

program decisions, rather than preparing O&S cost estimates simply for the sake of having an estimate. 

The update also made some improvements to the standard cost element structure. The update was 

provided to representatives from the Service Cost Agencies and field-level cost organizations. CAPE has 

reviewed the service comments, and incorporated or adjudicated them. To complete this update, CAPE is 

now working to expand the guide to address new legislative requirements for major system O&S costs. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, established a new 

provision concerning “Assessment, Management and Control of O&S Costs” that in part requires the 

Department to periodically update estimates of program O&S costs, and track and assess these estimates 

relative to prior estimates. The Act also calls for (1) better use of reliability and maintainability test and 

evaluation data to inform system design decisions and provide insights into sustainment cost estimates, 

and (2) new procedures to ensure that sustainment factors are fully considered at key management 

decision points, with emphasis on influencing system design in early development. 
25

In 2010, CAPE issued Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-007 on the topic “Estimating and 

Comparing the Full Costs of Civilian and Military Manpower and Contract Support.” During 2011 and 

2012, CAPE updated this DTM to incorporate comments, and began the process of preparing a 

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI 7041.dd) based on the existing DTM 09-007. In FY 2013, 

CAPE plans to complete the update of DTM 09-007, resulting in publication of DoDI 7041.dd on this 

topic. This DoDI will establish policy, assign responsibilities, and provide procedures to estimate and 

compare the full costs of active duty military and DoD civilian manpower, and contract support in a 

consistent manner across all DoD Components. To support the DoD community in performing the 

numerous calculations required by this instruction, CAPE will make available a web-enabled tool on the 

Full Cost of Manpower (FCoM), which will automatically calculate all cost elements required to maintain 

consistency with guidance in the DoDI, based on general user inputs. This web-based tool will be 

available via the CAPE website and will be usable by all personnel who possess a valid Common Access 

Card. 

Cost Data Systems 

Systematic and institutionalized cost data collection throughout DoD is important, to support credible cost 

estimates for current and future acquisition programs. As noted in Chapter II, DoD has three main cost 

data reporting systems: (1) the CSDR system, used for acquisition cost data; (2) the EVM Central 

Repository, used for centralized electronic warehousing of EVM data reports; and (3) the VAMOSC data 

systems, used to collect O&S costs for the major fielded weapon systems. Additional information on 

these three data systems is provided in Appendix D.

The Defense Cost and Resource Center (DCARC) is the OSD office responsible for administering the 

CSDR system. This year, the DCARC continued to update and strengthen the procedures, report formats, 

and detailed implementation guidance for CSDR. A new version of DoDM 5000.04-M-1, Cost and 

Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual, has been approved and is effective as of November 4, 2011. 

The Manual serves as the main implementation guidance for the CSDR system. The new Manual adds a 

new report (i.e., Contractor Business Data Report) that provides data on plant-wide overhead and other 

indirect costs. The Manual also establishes an improved system for the electronic submission of plans and 

reports through use of a DoD Common Access Card. In addition, new versions of the CSDR report 

formats and instructions to reporting contractors have been developed and are effective for any applicable 

request for proposal or other solicitation as of January 1, 2012.

The Manual can be obtained at the DCARC website, http://dcarc.cape.osd.mil/.

The DCARC also has developed cost reporting requirements for high-dollar value contractor logistics 

support and other similar defense system sustainment contracts for major weapon systems. This important 

initiative now will provide critical data for cost assessments of contractor support activities. The DCARC 

has developed a new contract report format and associated report instructions (Data Item Description) that 

will be used for cost reporting on new applicable sustainment contracts or contract modifications. The 

sustainment contract cost reporting requirement will not be applied retroactively to contracts awarded 

prior to May 2012. Both the report format and the Data Item Description are available at the DCARC 

website.
26

The DCARC has other initiatives to improve business processes and data quality. The DCARC hosts 

semiannual CSDR Focus Group meetings that provide a forum for DoD and industry stakeholders to raise 

issues and concerns, and share information about CSDR policies, processes, and practices. In addition, 

CAPE has established a senior CSDR Steering Committee with representatives from the Service Cost 

Agencies, the Missile Defense Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The Steering 

Committee provides executive oversight of the CSDR program and establishes strategic priorities for 

future improvements. The DCARC continues to provide on-site training to users and data providers at 

different locations several times each year. This training addresses DCARC policies, CSDR plan 

construction and reporting requirements, and DCARC information technology systems and applications. 

Tracking to Approved Estimate—PPBE and Acquisition

Cost estimates made to support milestone reviews and other program reviews should be used as the basis 

for budgeting. However, as programs move beyond their acquisition milestone approval and proceed 

through successive iterations of the PPBE system, changes to programs are often necessary for a variety 

of reasons, including fiscal constraints. As part of the Department’s program and budget review process, 

CAPE—in conjunction with USD(AT&L)—reviewed each program with significant funding changes 

from the latest baseline or prior year’s President’s Budget to determine the source of the cost estimate 

supporting the revised program and to ensure that the program remained fully funded. This process of 

tracking to the approved estimate will be even more important in the future, as the Department faces 

significant funding constraints, resulting in more reductions to program quantities and annual 

procurement rates, and more pressures to budget programs at less than full funding.

Cost Indexes

WSARA requires that CAPE periodically assess and update the cost indexes used by the Department to 

ensure that such indexes have a sound basis and meet the Department’s needs for realistic cost estimation. 

The cost indexes used by DoD all rest on inflation forecasts made by the administration and issued by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The use of the OMB forecast is directed by OMB Circular 

No. A-11 (Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget). The Under Secretary of 

Defense(Comptroller), or USD(C), provides the DoD military departments and defense agencies with 

guidance in the DoD Financial Management Regulation (FMR) on how to prepare budget estimates that 

comply with OMB guidelines; this guidance includes instructions on the use of USD(C)-provided 

deflators that are calculated from the OMB inflation forecast. 

In FY 2010 CAPE commissioned an independent study concerning cost indexes to provide a factual and 

analytical basis for responding to this provision of WSARA. Much of the study was focused on the 

treatment of inflation for the acquisition costs of MDAPs. The study found that in many cases, some DoD 

organizations—most notably, NAVSEA, NAVAIR, and many Air Force program offices—have 

developed specialized inflation projections for their programs. The study concluded that it would be 

appropriate to permit the use of program-specific inflation projections, subject to oversight by CAPE and 

USD(C). 

This study is available on the CAPE website at https://www.cape.osd.mil/ (click on “Public Reports”).
27

CAPE and USD(C) intend to update the FMR guidance on the treatment of inflation to be consistent with 

the recommendations of this study. 

In FY 2011 and 2012, CAPE continued to work on this topic. 

Cost Analysis Education and Training

CAPE is leading several initiatives to improve the education and training of the larger DoD civilian and 

military workforce in cost assessment, in accordance with the assigned responsibilities and goals of 

WSARA. 

CAPE has supported the Navy, the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and the Air Force Institute of 

Technology in establishing an accredited Master’s Degree Program in Cost Estimating and Analysis that 

began in April 2011. This two-year, distance-learning program will improve the education of the cost 

estimating community in both the DoD and in the defense industrial base. The program is part-time and 

consists of two courses per quarter, for eight quarters. Tuition may be paid through the use of the Defense 

Acquisition Workforce Development Fund (section 852 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law 110-181). The first cohort commenced in Spring 2011 and is scheduled to 

graduate in March 2013. The second cohort commenced in Spring 2012 and is scheduled to graduate in 

March 2014. The third cohort is scheduled to begin in Summer 2013.

In addition, the Army continues to sponsor a one-month residence program, taught by the NPS business 

school, which provides a certificate in cost management for Army personnel. This course will develop a 

cadre of cost management experts who will apply cost-benefit analysis to the decision making process. 

Also, CAPE continues to sponsor a one-week resource analysis course taught four times each year at the 

Institute for Defense Analyses. CAPE also sponsors and hosts the annual DoD Cost Analysis Symposium 

as discussed in Chapter III.

Summary

CAPE is continuing to develop and refine plans for the Department’s cost estimating and cost analysis 

functions. Implementation of these plans will ensure that the cost assessment organizations, workforce, 

policies and procedures, data collection systems, and training and education programs will be 

strengthened and improved as necessary to meet the expanded roles and responsibilities established by 

WSARA. CAPE will continue to work with the Department’s other cost and acquisition organizations to 

strengthen cost assessment so that better cost and schedule estimates are properly prepared and considered 

in the deliberations of all major acquisition programs. The progress on these initiatives will be reported in 

future editions of this report.
This page intentionally left blank
A-1

APPENDIX A

Cost Analysis Organizations in DoD

Independent Cost Assessment Organizations

There are four key offices for the preparation of ICEs. Within OSD, the office responsible for ICEs 

reports to the Director, CAPE. Within the military departments, these offices all report to their Assistant 

Secretary for Financial Management and Comptroller. The following paragraphs give a brief description 

and overview of these key offices responsible for ICEs.

OSD – Deputy Director for Cost Assessment

The CAPE Deputy Director for Cost Assessment prepares ICEs for all MDAPs and MAIS programs 

when acquisition oversight has not been delegated to a military department or Defense Agency, and it 

reviews all cost estimates and cost analyses prepared by the military departments and Defense Agencies 

in connection with other MDAPs and MAIS programs. The Deputy Director for Cost Assessment 

provides leadership to the entire DoD cost community with regard to workforce development and 

management, policy and procedures, cost data collection, cost analysis education and training, and cost 

research. 

Army – Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics 

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics (DASA-CE) develops ICEs and 

Component cost analyses of Army weapon and information systems. DASA-CE conducts independent 

reviews and validation of business case analyses, economic analyses, and special cost studies of major

weapon and information systems, force structure, and operating and support cost. DASA-CE serves as the 

Cost and Economics advisor for Army Study Advisory Groups. It chairs and oversees the Army Cost 

Review Board, develops and approves the Army Cost Position for all major acquisition programs, and 

conducts in-depth risk analyses of major Army programs and associated costs. 

Navy – Naval Center for Cost Analysis

The Naval Center for Cost Analysis (NCCA) advises the Secretary of the Navy, Chief of Naval 

Operations, and Commandant of the Marine Corps on cost and economic issues. NCCA leads the 

Department of the Navy cost community in issues of cost policy and policy implementation, with the goal 

of increasing the capability and efficiency of the Naval cost community. NCCA prepares ICEs for 

Department of the Navy MDAPs and MAIS programs, and also conducts economic analyses and special 

studies to support relevant defense issues. NCCA coordinates all Department of the Navy cost research.

The Executive Director of NCCA is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Cost and Economics). 

Air Force – Air Force Cost Analysis Agency

The Air Force Cost Analysis Agency (AFCAA) supports the Air Force by providing independent cost 

analyses and special studies for major space, aircraft and information systems as required by public law 

and DoD policy. AFCAA provides guidance, analytical support, and quantitative risk analyses to Air 

Force major commands and the Air Force corporate staff on the development of cost per flying-hour 

factors and resource requirements. AFCAA also conducts and coordinates cost research to develop 
A-2

analytical tools, models, and databases. The Executive Director of AFCAA is the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Cost and Economics.

Additional Field-Level Cost Organizations and Activities

There are several field-level cost organizations. These typically are located at a major product center such 

as the Naval Air Systems Command or the Air Force Electronic Systems Center. This section provides a 

summary of many of these important organizations; however, this list is not complete, and other 

organizations will need to be added to future editions of this annual report. 

Army

TACOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC)

The TACOM LCMC Cost and Systems Analysis organization is responsible for preparation of program 

office estimates, life cycle cost estimates, economic analyses, and combat effectiveness modeling that 

support the development of combat and tactical vehicles. It manages the tools and databases to support 

cost and systems analysis processes for the TACOM LCMC. The major cost analysis activities are life 

cycle cost estimating, cost reporting and EVM, O&S cost baselines, support to Analyses of Alternatives 

(AoAs), source selection evaluations, and cost analyses associated with multi-year procurement contracts. 

Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM)

The AMCOM Cost Analysis Division provides cost estimation and analysis support to Aviation, Missiles 

and Space Program Executive Offices and their Program/Project Offices. It manages the AMCOM Cost 

Analysis Program and develops, updates, or obtains cost estimating relationships, cost factors, and 

mathematical and computerized cost models for estimating purposes. It develops cost estimates to support 

AoAs, tradeoff studies, and force structure cost estimates. It develops and prepares life cycle cost 

estimates, and it conducts other related studies in support of weapon system cost analyses. It performs 

cost risk analyses and cost risk assessments to support weapon system program decisions. It also provides 

validation/review for cost estimates, economic analyses, and business case analyses.

CECOM Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC)

The Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Cost Analysis Division provides cost estimation 

and analysis support to CECOM Program Executive Offices and their Program/Project Offices. It 

provides several cost analysis services, including life cycle cost estimating, Earned Value Management, 

economic analysis, modeling and simulation, computer software and database support, and review and 

validation of business case analyses and other cost analyses.

Navy

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)

The Cost Department of the Naval Air Systems Command provides a wide variety of cost analysis 

products and services. Its primary focus is to provide a clear and comprehensive understanding of life 

cycle cost and attendant uncertainties to be used in developing, acquiring, and supporting affordable naval 

aviation systems. Besides life cycle cost estimates, the Cost Department provides source selection cost 

evaluation support, Earned Value Management analysis, cost research and databases, and various 

cost/benefit studies.
A-3

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)

The Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis Division of NAVSEA provides cost engineering and 

industrial base analysis for ships, ship-related combat systems, and weapons. It provides cost estimates in 

support of the DAB review process, including AoA studies. It also participates in contract proposal 

evaluations and the source selection process for builders and suppliers of ships and weapon systems, and

it conducts analysis and forecasting of labor, industrial, and technical trends as they affect the overall 

acquisition of ships, combat systems, weapons, and other equipment. 

Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR)

The Cost Estimating and Analysis Division (SPAWAR 01-6), depending on a program’s acquisition 

category, may provide assistance to ACAT I program offices, perform an ICE for ACAT II programs 

prior to a Milestone B or C review, or independently review a program office cost estimate upon the 

request of the Program Executive Officer (C4I and Space). SPAWAR 01-6 also provides more general 

cost analysis support to the Program Executive Officer (PEO) as needed.

Naval Surface Warfare Center

The Cost and Affordability Group resides within the Warfare Analysis Branch of the Requirements 

Analysis and Advanced Concepts Division of the Warfare Systems Department at the Naval Surface 

Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division. The Group produces cost estimates, cost-risk assessments, and 

affordability analyses for Combat Systems. The Group also develops cost-estimating methodology in 

support of systems development and production, AoAs, and strategic planning. Particular areas of 

expertise include model development and maintenance, cost-research databases, technology assessments, 

life cycle cost estimates, budget and force-level analyses, performance-based cost models, productoriented cost models, proposal evaluation, and source selection reviews.

Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC)

The Cost and Analysis Branch (C&AB) is the MCSC authority in the field of cost analysis. The C&AB 

conducts and oversees the development of cost estimates for MCSC weapon, IT, and non-standard 

training systems programs. The C&AB advises the Commander MCSC and PEOs on the historic, current, 

and emerging trends in all elements of cost estimating and cost analysis. The Branch works for the MCSC 

Commander as an independent agent that provides cost products to Program Management Offices 

(PMOs) and PEOs. The Branch is organized into analytical teams in direct cost support of the PMOs and 

PEOs and a general support studies team for conducting AoAs and other operations research studies and 

analyses. Through its processes the C&AB delivers life-cycle cost estimates to satisfy the “Will-Cost” 

estimate whereas PMOs perform the “Should-Cost” analysis. 

Air Force

Electronic Systems Center (ESC)

The ESC Cost Estimating Division supports the ESC by providing independent analysis and verification 

of electronic systems’ cost to the Center’s leadership, with a focus on improving the overall quality, 

objectivity, and credibility of cost estimates. The Cost Division leads the Center’s modern, quick-reaction 

cost tools program and spearheads comprehensive cost training essential to cost analysts and program 

managers throughout the Center. 
A-4

Air Force Space Command, Space and Missile Center (SMC)

The SMC Cost Estimating Division supports cost estimates and cost analyses associated with Air Force 

Space Command and the Space and Missile Center’s mission of satellite acquisition, launch, and control.

Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC)

The ASC Cost and Economics Division is responsible for training, organizing, and equipping the cost 

analysis workforce at the ASC. This support is accomplished by leading estimates for program milestone 

decisions, managing the annual cost estimate process, supporting pre-award activities and source 

selections, and participating in policy discussions resulting in high-quality cost estimates and analysis 

across the Center. 

Other

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Cost Analysis Improvement Group

The NRO Cost Analysis Improvement Group provides independent cost estimating support to the NRO. 

This support covers milestone decisions, budget submissions, EVM, ad hoc program support, data 

collection, methods development, and model/tool development.

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

The DISA Analysis and Internal Controls Division guides, directs, and strengthens cost analyses within 

DISA; and prepares cost estimates for the development, procurement, and sustainment of automated 

information systems and information technology capabilities. The Division provides independent support 

for DISA program/project costing efforts, and publishes DISA policies, practices and templates for cost 

estimation, cost/benefit analysis, and economic analysis.
B-1

APPENDIX B

Major Defense Acquisition Program Unit Cost Reporting

Since 1982, the Congress has required DoD to track and report on the unit cost for most MDAPs. The 

requirement for unit cost reporting may be waived if the program has not entered EMD, a reasonable cost 

estimate has not been established for the program, and the system configuration is not well defined. The 

provisions of the law concerning unit cost reporting, commonly referred to as the Nunn-McCurdy 

provisions, are found in section 2433 of title 10, United States Code. A complete description of the 

Department’s implementation of these provisions is provided in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook

(https://dag.dau.mil): see Chapter 10, Section 10.9 (“Acquisition Program Baseline”), and Section 

10.10.1.5 (“Unit Cost Reports”).

There are two unit cost metrics subject to reporting, Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) and Average 

Procurement Unit Cost (APUC). PAUC is defined as the total program acquisition cost (sum of research, 

development, test, and evaluation plus procurement plus military construction) divided by the total 

program quantity of fully configured end items. APUC is defined as the program procurement cost 

divided by the procurement quantity. Both unit cost metrics are tracked in constant dollars of a base year 

established for each program.

The most current cost estimate for each unit cost metric is tracked relative to two baseline cost estimates. 

The current baseline estimate refers to the most recent baseline approved by the MDA. The original 

baseline estimate refers to the baseline approved at program initiation (usually Milestone B). A program 

is declared to have a unit cost (Nunn-McCurdy) breach when the current unit cost estimate exceeds either 

baseline unit cost estimate by more than certain specified percentages. Specifically, as shown in Table B1, a unit cost breach takes place when any of the following conditions occurs, for either version of 

program unit cost (APUC or PAUC):

Table B-1. Nunn-McCurdy Breach Thresholds

“Significant” Breach “Critical” Breach

Current Baseline Estimate +15% +25%

Original Baseline Estimate +30% +50%

Note that there are two degrees associated with the severity of the unit cost breach. For significant unit 

cost breaches, the Department notifies the Congress of the breach within 45 days of the unit cost report 

and subsequently submits a program SAR with additional, breach-related information. For critical unit 

cost breaches, in addition to notifying the Congress and submitting the SAR, the Department is required 

to conduct a complete assessment of the program, led by USD(AT&L), and determine if it should be 

terminated or continued. The Department is required to terminate the program unless a letter signed by 

USD(AT&L), providing the certification that the program currently meets certain criteria established in 

law (section 2433a of title 10, United States Code), is submitted to the Congress within 60 days of the 

SAR submission. Among other things, USD(AT&L) must certify that the Director, CAPE has determined 

the new unit cost estimates are reasonable. A complete description of the critical unit cost breach 
B-2

certification process can be found in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 10, Section 

10.10.1.5.2.2.
C-1

APPENDIX C

Major Automated Information System Reporting

Public law (section 2445c of title 10, United States Code) requires annual and quarterly reports from 

MAIS programs, pre-MAIS programs, and “any other investment in automated information system 

products or services that is expected to exceed the [MAIS] thresholds...” Details about the MAIS 

reporting requirements may be found in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 10, Section 10.11. 

Briefly, a MAIS Quarterly Report is used internally within the Department, and a MAIS Annual Report is 

provided to the congressional defense committees 45 days after submission of the President’s Budget. 

The formats of the quarterly report and annual report are similar. The reports provide a program 

description and the latest status regarding schedule, performance characteristics, development cost, and 

life cycle cost.

The reports compare the latest estimates of schedule, performance, and cost relative to the program 

baseline approved at the previous acquisition milestone. This comparison is used to determine if the 

program has a deviation known as either a Significant Change or Critical Change. A Significant Change 

occurs when a program has a schedule delay of more than six months, but less than one year; there is a 

significant, adverse change in the expected performance of the system; or the estimated development cost 

or life cycle cost has increased by at least 15 percent but less than 25 percent. For a program with a 

Significant Change, the Department is required to notify the congressional defense committees of the 

change within 45 days after receiving the report that identified the deviation. A Critical Change occurs 

when a program has a schedule delay of one year or more or fails to achieve a full deployment decision 

within five years of when funds for the program were first obligated; there is a change in expected 

performance that will undermine the ability of the system to perform its intended functions; or the 

estimated development cost or life cycle cost has increased by 25 percent or more. For a program with a 

Critical Change, the Department must conduct an evaluation of the program, and then submit a report and 

a formal certification to the congressional defense committees within 60 days after receiving the report 

that identified the deviation. 
This page intentionally left blank
D-1

APPENDIX D

DoD Cost Data Collection Systems

Three primary data collection systems are used by DoD as the major sources of cost data for major 

acquisition programs. The CSDR system serves as the primary source of acquisition cost data for major 

contracts and subcontracts associated with MDAPs. The EVM Central Repository is used to collect and 

archive EVM reporting documents (such as Contract Performance Reports, Integrated Master Schedules, 

and Contract Funds Status Reports). The VAMOSC systems collect historical O&S costs for major 

weapon systems.

Cost and Software Data Reporting System

The CSDR system is the primary means that DoD uses to collect actual cost and related data on major 

defense contracts. Defense contractors support the CSDR system, under contractual agreements, by 

reporting data on contractor development and production costs and resource usage incurred in performing 

DoD programs. The two principal components of the CSDR are contractor cost data reporting (CCDR) 

and software resources data reporting (SRDR).

CCDR is the primary means within DoD to systematically collect data on the development and 

production costs incurred by contractors. DoD Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Defense Acquisition 

System, establishes the CCDR requirements for major contracts and subcontracts (regardless of contract 

type) associated with MDAPs.

The SRDR system collects software metrics data to supplement the CCDR cost data, to provide a better 

understanding and improved estimating of software-intensive programs. DoD Instruction 5000.02

establishes SRDR requirements for major contracts and subcontracts (regardless of contract type) 

associated with MDAPs. Data collected from applicable contracts include type and size of the software 

application(s), schedule, and labor resources needed for the software development. 

Access to CSDR data is provided by the DCARC to authorized and approved users. Detailed procedures 

and other implementation guidance for both CSDR systems are found in DoDM 5000.04-M-1, Cost and 

Software Data Reporting (CSDR) Manual. This manual (as well as downloadable report formats and 

definitions, specific report examples, and other related information) can be found at the DCARC website 

(http://dcarc.cape.osd.mil). 

Cost and Software Data Reporting Compliance

The DCARC continually monitors each MDAP for compliance with CSDR requirements where 

applicable. 

CSDR reporting is not required when (1) the program is in pre-Milestone A status, with no prototypes, or 

(2) the CSDR requirements have been waived by CAPE. Waivers for CSDR requirements may be granted 

when (1) a program is a procurement of a commercial system, or (2) a program is purchased under 

competitively awarded, firm fixed-price contracts, as long as competitive conditions continue to exist.
D-2

For the programs for which CSDR reporting is required and that are monitored for compliance, the 

compliance ratings established by the DCARC are based on the following five criteria:

• CSDR reporting plans have been submitted and approved.

• Approved reporting plans have been included in the appropriate request for proposal.

• Supporting contract data requirements (i.e., Contract Data Requirements Lists) for the various 

CSDR reports have been submitted.

• CSDR reports have been submitted on time consistently.

• CSDR reports have passed DCARC validation procedures consistently.

A program is rated fully compliant when all five criteria are met with no missing or incomplete items. A 

program is rated mostly compliant when all CSDR reporting requirements are placed on contract, but one 

or more criteria are not completely met. A program is rated not compliant when either (1) contracts were 

awarded that did not meet CSDR reporting requirements, or (2) any deficiency in meeting any of the five 

criteria has been open and unresolved for more than three months past the required due date.

For FY 2012, approximately 94 percent of the programs that have CSDR reporting were fully or mostly 

compliant based on the criteria above; the remaining six percent (nine programs) are classified as not 

compliant. This is about the same level of compliance as during the last two years. Ninety-seven percent 

of the programs were considered compliant or mostly compliant in FY 2011, and 93 percent of the 

programs were considered compliant or mostly compliant in FY 2010. CAPE and the DCARC are 

continuing to emphasize the importance of CSDR reporting compliance for achieving more accurate 

program life cycle cost estimates in the future.

Earned Value Management Central Repository

In collaboration with the staff of USD(AT&L), the DCARC hosts the EVM Central Repository. The 

central repository supports the centralized reporting, collection, archiving, and distribution of key EVM 

data reports (such as Contract Performance Reports, Integrated Master Schedules, and Contract Funds 

Status Reports) for MDAPs and MAIS programs. Information about the central repository is available at 

the DCARC website, http://dcarc.cape.osd.mil/EVM/EVMOverview.aspx. More general information 

about EVM reporting is available in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (https://dag.dau.mil), Chapter 11, 

Section 11.3.1, and at the DoD Earned Value Management website, http://www.acq.osd.mil/evm.

The central repository supports complete, timely, and secure transfer of electronic data from the 

contractor to the repository; secure and controlled warehousing of the data; and controlled, timely, and 

secure access to the data by authorized users. The main purpose of these data is to provide a consistent 

and timely situational awareness of acquisition execution. 

Both the CCDR and the EVM reporting use a common, product-oriented taxonomy known as a Work 

Breakdown Structure (WBS) that follows the guidelines of the DoD Standard Practice, Work Breakdown 

Structures for Defense Materiel Items (MIL-STD-881C). The WBS is a hierarchy of product-oriented 

elements (hardware, deliverable software, data, and services) that collectively constitute the system to be 

developed or produced. Further information about the use of the WBS in cost reporting and cost 

estimating can be found in the Defense Acquisition Guidebook, Chapter 3, Section 3.7.1.1. The most 
D-3

recent WBS standard (dated October 3, 2011) is available at 

http://dcarc.cape.osd.mil/CSDR/Planning.aspx

Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs Data System

DoD requires that each military department maintain a system that collects historical data on the O&S 

costs for major fielded weapon systems. The Deputy Director for Cost Assessment provides policy 

guidance on this requirement, known as the VAMOSC program; specifies the common format in which 

the data are to be reported; and monitors its implementation by each of the military departments. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Public Law 112-81, contains a provision that 

calls for strengthened CAPE oversight of the VAMOSC program.

Each department has its own unique VAMOSC data system that tracks actual O&S cost experience for 

major weapon systems. The data can be displayed by time frame, at various levels of detail, and by 

functional elements of cost (such as depot maintenance, fuel, consumable items, and so forth). Each 

VAMOSC system provides not only cost data, but related non-cost data (such as system quantities and 

operating tempo) as well. VAMOSC data can be used to analyze trends in O&S cost experience for each 

major system, as well as to identify and assess major cost drivers. VAMOSC data systems are managed 

by each military department as follows: 

• The Navy’s VAMOSC management information system collects and reports US Navy and US 

Marine Corps historical weapon system O&S costs. VAMOSC provides the direct O&S costs of 

weapon systems; some indirect costs (e.g., ship depot overhead); and related non-cost information 

such as flying hour metrics, steaming hours, age of aircraft, personnel counts for ships, etc. It is 

managed by the Naval Center for Cost Analysis.

• The Army’s VAMOSC system, called the Operating and Support Management Information 

System (OSMIS), tracks operating and support information for over 1,400 major Army 

weapon/materiel systems and is maintained by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Cost and Economics. OSMIS-tracked systems include combat vehicles, tactical 

vehicles, artillery systems, aircraft, electronic systems, and miscellaneous engineering systems. 

• The Air Force’s VAMOSC system, called the Air Force Total Ownership Cost system, or 

AFTOC, is managed by the AFCAA. It provides O&S cost information on all Air Force aircraft, 

space systems, and missiles. The O&S cost information collected includes unit-level manpower, 

fuel, depot maintenance overhaul costs, depot-level reparable costs, and condemnation costs of 

major U.S. Air Force aircraft and engines. 
This page intentionally left blank
E-1

ABBREVIATIONS

AARGM Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile

ACAT Acquisition Category

ACWA Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives

AFCAA Air Force Cost Analysis Agency

AFTOC Air Force Total Ownership Cost

AMCOM Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command

AoA Analysis of Alternatives

APB Acquisition Program Baseline

APUC Average Procurement Unit Cost

ASC Aeronautical Systems Center

ATIRCM Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures

AW Alternative Warhead

BMD Ballistic Missile Defense

C2BMC Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications

CAIG Cost Analysis Improvement Group

CAPE Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

CARD Cost Analysis Requirements Description

CCDR Contractor Cost Data Reporting

CECOM Communications-Electronics Command

CIRCM Common Infrared Countermeasures

CROWS Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station

CSDR Cost and Software Data Reporting

DAB Defense Acquisition Board

DASA-CE Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics

DCAPE Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation

DCARC Defense Cost and Resource Center

DISA Defense Information Systems Agency

DoD Department of Defense

DoDCAS Department of Defense Cost Analysis Symposium

DTM Directive-Type Memorandum

EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles

EHF Extremely High Frequency

EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development

EPAA European Phased Adaptive Approach

ESC Electronic Systems Center

EVM Earned Value Management

FCoM Full Cost of Manpower

FMR Financial Management Regulation

FYDP Future Years Defense Program
E-2

G/ATOR Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar

GMLRS Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System

GPS Global Positioning System

IAMD Integrated Air and Missile Defense

ICE Independent Cost Estimate

JLENS Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System

JLTV Joint Light Tactical Vehicle

JSF Joint Strike Fighter

JTRS Joint Tactical Radio System

LCMC Life Cycle Management Command

LEP Life Extension Program

MAIS Major Automated Information System

MDA Milestone Decision Authority

MDA Missile Defense Agency

MDAP Major Defense Acquisition Program

MGUE Military GPS User Equipment

MIDS Multi-Functional Information Distribution System

N/A Not Applicable

NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command

NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command

NBCRV Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle

NCCA Naval Center for Cost Analysis

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NPS Naval Postgraduate School

NRO National Reconnaissance Office

NWC Nuclear Weapons Council

O&S Operating and Support

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OSMIS Operating and Support Management Information System

PA&E Program Analysis and Evaluation

PARCA Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses

PAUC Program Acquisition Unit Cost

PEO Program Executive Officer

PIM Paladin Integrated Management

PMO Program Management Office

POM Program Objective Memorandum

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution

PTSS Precision Tracking Space System

SAR Selected Acquisition Report

SM-3 Standard Missile-3
E-3

SMC Space and Missile Center

SPAWAR Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

SRDR Software Resources Data Reporting

SSC Ship to Shore Connector

TBD To Be Determined

TKA Tail Kit Assembly

USD(AT&L) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

USD(C) Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

USMC United States Marine Corps

VAMOSC Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WSARA Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act