NGP LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF AIRCRAFT FIRE 

SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS 

J. Michael Bennett, Ph.D 

Bennettech, LLC 

1020 Kellyn Lane 

Hendersonville, TN 37075 

Tel: (937) 367-5675; e-mail: mikebennett@bennettechllc.com

BACKGROUND 

TECHNICAL CHALLENGE 

Fire is either the primary cause or a contributing factor in a large portion of mishaps that result in 

a material loss of aircraft assets; in many instances, injuries to personnel and loss of mission 

capability accompany a fire event. Aircraft fires impose a significant cost impact to the military. 

Methods and technologies to mitigate them or "design them out" are typically desirable, not only 

to save aircraft, but also to save lives and prevent property damage. 

To determine the preferred fire extinguishing medium, system or method for any application, 

typically the most holistic manner of approach is to compare alternatives based upon on an 

overall cost of ownership, or “life cycle cost” over its useful life, or some fixed period of use. 

This approach can incorporate various facets of the costs associated with procuring, installing 

and maintaining such equipment, including non-hardware costs such as development and 

certification, as well as maintenance, repair and replacement. Fire protection equipment that 

functions successfully will prevent damage to property and other assets (including personnel), 

resulting in an offsetting cost savings, based upon the success rate and speed of suppression 

(thereby minimizing physical damage), and the cost of the protected assets themselves. The net 

“cost” or savings of each alternative can then be compared to determine the best choice, in this 

case as a replacement for the Halon fire extinguishing chemicals. This process can then be used 

to also determine whether any fire extinguishing system provides any net cost savings, where the 

cost savings in terms of assets preserved exceeds the “life cycle cost” of the technology itself, 

thereby justifying the use of any fire protection system at all for an application of interest. It 

may also be used to determine an optimal firefighting capacity of a system, wherein the cost 

savings due to the degree of effectiveness of the system (which may not be the highest level of 

effectiveness possible) exceeds the cost of providing such a system at a size that provides that 

level of effectiveness, to the maximum extent possible over a range of effectiveness levels and 

associated size capacities considered. 

There is a need to quantify any new fire protection technology by its cost in order to determine if 

it is sufficiently superior to the state-of-the-art to warrant further pursuit; to provide a 

groundwork for a future, more comprehensive model to be used by weapon system program 

managers for determining, via life cycle costs, the most appropriate alternative to use to replace 

Halon 1301 in their systems; and to use the developed methodology to identify the aspects of fire 

protection technologies which offer the highest potential payoff. 

1
NEXT GENERATION FIRE SUPPRESSION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (NGP) 

The goal of the Next Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program (NGP) is to develop and 

demonstrate retrofitable, economically feasible, environmentally-acceptable, and user-safe 

processes, techniques, and fluids that meet the operational requirements currently satisfied by 

Halon 1301 systems in aircraft. The results will be specifically applicable to fielded weapon 

systems, and will provide dual-use fire suppression technologies for preserving both life and 

operational assets. [1] 

OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH 

TASK OBJECTIVES 

In accordance with these principles, in support of the NGP program this initiative conducted a 

life-cycle cost analysis of aircraft fire extinguishing systems, in the following manner to achieve 

the following objectives: 

(1) A life cycle cost baseline was established for typical Halon 1301 fire extinguishing 

systems that are used on aircraft today, by considering several varied aircraft platform 

type representatives (both legacy (existing) and future platform types), to establish a lifecycle cost equivalence goal for any Halon replacement derived from and considered by 

the NGP program. 

(2) A similar cost analysis was performed for the same platforms using the “first generation” 

Halon replacement HFC-125 selected and placed into service prior to the NGP program 

(sized to the same level of performance as the existing Halon systems), to establish 

“threshold” cost-of-ownership levels that any Halon replacement considered by the NGP 

must exceed to be of preference over the pre-existing HFC-125 and thus maintain further 

interest for research and implementation, while still targeting the life cycle cost “goal” of 

Halon equivalence for the program. 

(3) Cost of ownership studies were also performed by varying the performance levels of such 

systems, by adjusting the size capacities (with resultant weight and size impacts on life 

cycle cost), to determine an “optimal” performance level in terms life cycle cost by 

balancing firefighting effectiveness with the size capacity cost implications. 

(4) The cost studies also evaluated the merits of Halon 1301, HFC-125 or any other fire 

protection systems, in terms of their ability to “pay for themselves” by determining if the 

cost savings in terms of assets saved historically actually exceed the life cycle costs of 

developing, installing and supporting such systems in the field, to confirm if the systems 

actually provide a tangible monetary benefit to their aircraft customers, to determine 

which aircraft configurations (if not all, or none) provide such benefits, and to quantify 

any perceived benefits. 

(5) The methodologies developed, modified and demonstrated in this initiative, applied in 

this case to Halon 1301 and HFC-125, were fashioned to serve as a stand-alone product 

2
of the NGP (having already been used on some developmental aircraft since their 

formulation), and provide the framework to build modified models using new Halon 

replacements considered by the NGP or other future research, to compare versus the offthe-shelf goal and threshold baselines established in this study, and serve as an analysis 

tool to suggest key indicators of ideal Halon replacement properties to consider in later 

research of new technologies, as expressed in system and aircraft-level cost impacts. 

METHODOLOGY 

A methodology was developed to determine the net cost of the fire suppression system. This 

methodology incorporates the cost of the system, which is a function of system size/weight, and 

the cost savings provided by the system, which are a function of extinguishant effectiveness and 

the resultant aircraft saved. The net cost is the cost of the system minus the cost savings. 

System characterization was necessary to fully understand and appreciate the system cost 

information. This was accomplished for both a Halon 1301 and HFC-125 system. Information 

which assisted in characterizing these systems included technical manuals, HFC-125 Design 

Guide, and assistance from the program managers. Additional system characterization data 

included the number of bottles, bottles size, activation, number of shots, and information on the 

distribution system. Space limitation, bottle/plumbing accessibility, and modification potential 

data were compiled. 

System cost information was developed utilizing the data contained in logistics databases that 

contains part numbers, suppliers, and other logistical information specifically for the Service of 

interest, and various traditional costing factors that are used by government and industry. 

Additional data came from the program managers. Fire suppression system and chemical 

manufacturers were contacted for cost information. Maintenance costs were based on the 

maintenance man hours incurred per flight hour. Military personnel costs were based on the 

number of personnel authorizations per airframe. 

The following figure shows a standard process used to determine fire suppression system costs. 

3
Life-Cycle

Cost Estimating

Process

Life-Cycle

Cost Estimating

Process

•MNS

•Functional Experts

•Analysis of Alternatives

•Preferred Solution

 

• Technical Specialists

• Program Analysts

• Cost Analysts

• LCCE Schedule

• Finalize cost

proposal

• List proposed

deliverables

• Functional Description

• Mission Requirements

• Development Scenario

• Technical Characteristics

• Program Characteristics

• Tech Baseline

• System Description

• Integration

• Schedule

• Acquisition Strategy

• Test Plan

• MIL-STD-881B

• OSD CAIG O&S Hdbk

• Time Phasing

• Inflation

• Budget Profiles

• Logistics

• WBS/CES

• Similar Systems

• Technology Projections

• Cost/Technical Data Sources

• Contractor Internal Data

• Comparative Analysis

• Cost Estimating

 Relationships

• Parametrics

• Analogous Techniques

• Engineering Methods

• Ops & Support Estimate

• Estimating Uncertainties

• Technical Risk

• Schedule Risk

• Program Risk

• Sensitivity Analysis 

• Ground Rules

• Methodology

• Data Sources

• Updates

Customer

Interface

Customer

Interface

Customer

Interface

Team Selection

and

Planning

System

Characterization

Ground Rules

&

Assumptions

Data Collection

& Methodology

Selection

Application of

Estimating

Techniques

Uncertainty

and

Risk Evaluation

Cost Estimate

Documentation

& Delivery

Figure 1. Standard Life Cycle Cost Estimating Process. 

The cost savings for the life cycle period of interest in this study were estimated by using the 

traditional success rate for existing engine halon systems, the estimated fire costs per flight hour, 

and the number of flight hours for the aircraft of interest. Field experience of existing engine 

halon systems on current aircraft, depending on the platform, shows that the systems have a 60 to 

80 percent success rate. The Annual Fire Protection Cost Model (described previously in this 

paper) postulated that future aircraft losses due to fire incidents were a function of the total 

number of flight hours (FH) for this period. An historical relationship between fire costs and 

flight hours was established. The resulting average fire costs per flight hour (in FY 2000 dollars) 

was $62.85 per flight hour. 

COST ANALYSIS 

The life-cycle cost of a system includes the acquisition, operation, and maintenance over the life 

of the system. The HFC-125 system is reusable/rechargeable. The pressure vessels must be 

hydrostatically tested periodically and the explosive initiators used in the design must be 

changed periodically due to the limited propellant life. Support equipment and facilities required 

to service these units add to the life-cycle cost. Costs associated with actual system utilization 

are generally low because of the infrequent need to use the system, although the rate of 

inadvertent discharge in some older aircraft may be significant. The life-cycle cost of a system 

can be heavily impacted by the potential for increased weight that may result from incorporation 

of a non-ozone-depleting fire extinguishing system. [2] 

4
Costs estimated in this effort would include those incurred in the research, development, test and 

evaluation (RDT&E), procurement, and operations and maintenance (O&M) phases of an 

acquisition. RDT&E costs deal with all costs required to develop the fire suppression 

technology into a deployable system. Procurement (also called initial or nonrecurring) costs 

include those associated with the purchase of the fire suppression system (and associated 

hardware) and suppressant. O&M costs are broad and far-reaching. Included in this category 

are those costs associated with program management support and life-cycle sustainment 

management. 

COST ELEMENT STRUCTURE DATA DEVELOPMENT 

This fire suppression system's detailed cost element structure (CES) is based on the DoD 5000.4-

M and MIL-HDBK-881 CES. It was customized for this particular system and approach. The 

resulting CES used in this methodology is given in Table 1. 

5
Table 1. Detailed Cost Element Structure. 

1.0. RDT&E (3600) 2.0. PROCUREMENT (3010) 3.0. OPERATIONS AND MA1.1. Concept Exploration 2.1. Prime Mission Product 3.1. Program Administration 1.2. Prototype EMD Cost Sharing 2.1.1. Subsystems 3.1.1. Program Management Su1.2.1. Subsystem 2.1.1.1. Group A Kit 3.1.1.1. Miscellaneous Contract 1.2.1.1. Group A Kit 2.1.1.2. Group B Kit 3.1.1.2. Government Technical 1.2.1.2. Group B Kit 2.1.2. Non-Recurring Engineering 3.1.1.3. Travel 1.2.2. COTS/GOTS Software 2.1.3. Software Integration 3.1.2. Life-Cycle Sustainment M1.2.3. Development Software 2.1.4. Integration, Assembly, Test and Checkout 3.2. Program Operational Supp1.2.4. Integration, Assembly, Test and Checkout 2.2. System/Platform Integration and Assembly 3.2.1. Recurring Training 1.3. System/Platform Integration 2.3. Systems Engineering/Program Management 3.2.2. Technical Data Revision 1.4. System Engineering/Program Management 2.3.1. Systems Engineering 3.2.3. Software Maintenance 1.4.1. Systems Engineering 2.3.2. Program Management 3.2.4. Hardware Maintenance 1.4.2. Program Management 2.3.3. Logistics Management 3.2.4.1. Organic Support 1.4.3. Travel 2.4. System Test and Evaluation 3.2.4.2. Contractor Maintenanc1.5. System Test and Evaluation 2.4.1. Operational Test and Evaluation 3.2.5. Replenishment Spares 1.5.1. Developmental Test and Evaluation 2.5. Engineering Change Orders 3.2.6. Repair Parts and Material1.5.2. Operational Test and Evaluation 2.6. Initial Cadre Training 3.2.7. Transportation, Packagin1.6. Data 2.7. Data 3.2.8. Storage 1.7. Training 2.8. Operational Fielding/Site Activation 3.2.9. Disposal 1.8. Evolutionary Technology Insertions (ETI) 2.9. Depot Setup 3.2.10. Facility Projects/Upgra1.8.1. Program Management 2.10. Support Equipment 3.2.11. Operational O&M Impa1.8.2. Prototype and Test Bed 2.10.1. Common Support Equipment 3.2.12. Program Operations 1.8.3. Market Surveys 2.10.2. Peculiar Support Equipment 3.2.13. Unit Level Support 1.9. Support Equipment 2.11. Initial Spares and Repair Parts 3.2.13.1. Recurring Training (U1.9.1. Common Support Equipment 2.12. Warranty 3.2.13.2. Operating Consumab1.9.2. Peculiar Support Equipment 2.13. Evolutionary Technology Insertions 3.2.13.3. Unit Level O&M Imp

2.14. Interim Contractor Support 3.2.14. Depot Level Support 2.15. Flexible Sustainment Support 3.2.15. Contractor Logistics Su

4.0. MILITARY PERSONNE5.0. MILITARY CONSTRUC

6
AIRCRAFT FIRE-RELATED COSTS AND SAVINGS (HISTORICAL DATA) 

In a previous study (Annual Fire Protection Cost Model), the historical and projected costs due 

to fire were determined. By combining the components which comprise the costs of peacetime 

aircraft losses due to fire, a resulting historical cost (over a 30 year period) of approximately 

$9.271 billion was obtained, measured in 1995 dollars; for the costs of combat aircraft losses due 

to fire, approximately $5.878 billion ($95), based primarily on Southeast Asia experience, was 

incurred; for the costs of utilizing aircraft fire protection, approximately $315.651 million ($95) 

was experienced. Thus, the total historical costs of fire to the U.S. Air Force over the 1966 to 

1995 time period was estimated to be $15.465 billion ($95). The total projected costs of fire to 

the U.S. Air Force over the 1996 to 2025 time period was forecast to be $15.990 billion ($96). A 

net present value of over $119 million was projected to be the net benefit of fire suppression 

systems over the next 30 years. [3] 

COSTS OF CURRENT/PROPOSED SYSTEMS FOR VARIOUS AIRCRAFT TYPES

This effort developed a methodology to determine total system costs, cost savings incurred, and 

net cost of an aviation fire protection system. This methodology was developed for systems with 

equivalent and varied performance of Halon 1301 to optimize benefit per system weight and 

cost. The methodology has been developed for engine nacelle applications for representative 

cargo, fighter, and rotary wing aircraft. The methodology is being developed for dry bay 

applications for representative fighter and rotary wing aircraft and engine nacelle applications for 

representative unmanned aircraft. The results of these efforts are given below. 

CARGO AIRCRAFT 

For cargo aircraft, the cost of ownership for a “legacy” (such as those fielded today) Halon 1301 

system was determined to be $25M, and a legacy HFC-125 system ranged from $35 to $41M. 

The estimated fire loss-related cost was $204M. The estimated cost savings are between $122M 

and $163M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 1301 system ranges from $–97M to $–138M. 

The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 system ranges from $–81M to $–129M. 

For cargo aircraft, the cost of ownership for the future Halon 1301 system (for newly designed 

and manufactured aircraft, without retrofit expenses) is $36M, and a future HFC-125 system 

ranges from $35 to $44M. The estimated fire cost is $226M. The estimated cost savings are 

between $136 and $181M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 1301 system ranges from $–99 

to $–144M. The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 system ranges from $–91M to $–146M. 

The results of this effort are documented in another publication. [4] 

FIGHTER AIRCRAFT 

For a fighter aircraft, the cost of ownership for the legacy Halon 1301 system is $11.2M, and a 

legacy HFC-125 system ranges from $15.7 to $17.8M. The estimated fire cost is $258M. The 

estimated cost savings are between $154.8 and $206.3M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 

7
1301 system ranges from $–143.5M to $–195.1M. The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 

system ranges from $–136.9M to $–190.6M. 

Using the legacy fighter aircraft fire suppression system cost and cost savings information, the 

following conclusions were reached: 

• Even if the legacy fighter aircraft fire suppression system only saved seven percent of 

the aircraft assets it was designed to protect, the benefit (assets saved) would still be 

greater than the cost of the fire suppression system. 

• Using a conservative value of 60 percent fire suppression system effectiveness, a 

system cost of up to $282K per aircraft could be justified. Note that the current as 

well as forecast fire suppression system costs per aircraft are an order of magnitude 

less than this value. This value is a breakpoint between system cost and benefit. 

For fighter aircraft, the cost of ownership for the future Halon 1301 system is $14.4M and for a 

future HFC-125 system ranges from $15.8 to $18.0M. The estimated fire cost is $260.8M. The 

estimated cost savings are between $156.5 and $208.7M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 

1301 system ranges from $–142.1 to $–194.2M. The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 system 

ranges from $–138.5M to $–192.9M. 

Using the future fighter aircraft fire suppression system cost and cost savings information, the 

following conclusions were reached: 

• Like the legacy systems, even if the future fighter aircraft fire suppression system 

only saved seven percent of the aircraft assets it was designed to protect, the benefit 

(assets saved) would still be greater than the cost of the fire suppression system. 

• Using a conservative value of 60 percent fire suppression system effectiveness, a 

system cost of up to $285K per aircraft could be justified. 

This study is also documented in a separate report. [5] 

ROTARY-WING AIRCRAFT 

For rotary-wing aircraft, the cost of ownership for the legacy Halon 1301 system is $33.4M and 

is $45.3M for a legacy HFC-125 system. The estimated fire cost is $620.2M. The estimated 

cost savings are between $372.1 and $462.7M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 1301 

system ranges from $–338.7M to $–462.7M. The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 system 

ranges from $–326.8M to $–450.9M. 

Using the legacy rotary-wing aircraft fire suppression system cost and cost savings information, 

the following conclusions were reached: 

• Even if the rotary-wing aircraft fire suppression system only saved eight percent of 

the aircraft assets it was designed to protect, the benefit (assets saved) would still be 

greater than the cost of the fire suppression system. 

8
• Using a conservative value of 60 percent fire suppression system effectiveness, a 

system cost of up to $307K per aircraft could be justified, with this value being a 

breakpoint between system cost and benefit. 

The cost of ownership for a Halon 1301 system for future rotor-craft is $40.1M, and is $42.2M 

for a legacy HFC-125 system. The estimated fire cost is $631.2M. The estimated cost savings 

are between $378.7 and $505.0M. The estimated net cost for the Halon 1301 system ranges 

from $–338.6M to $–464.8M. The estimated net cost for the HFC-125 system ranges from $–

336.5M to $–462.7M. 

Using the future rotary-wing aircraft fire suppression system cost and cost savings information, 

the following conclusions were reached: 

• Even if the rotary-wing aircraft fire suppression system only saved seven percent of 

the aircraft assets it was designed to protect, the benefit (assets saved) would still be 

greater than the cost of the fire suppression system. 

• Using a conservative value of 60 percent fire suppression system effectiveness, a 

system cost of up to $312K per aircraft could be justified. 

This study is documented in a separate report. [6] 

VARIED PERFORMANCE 

Using the methodology previously developed, modifications were made to the performance of 

the cargo and fighter fire suppression systems by utilizing data from the Factor of Safety (FOS) 

study performed during Phase III of the Halon Replacement Program for Aviation, which 

collected a small set of data that documented reduced extinguishment success percentages, as a 

function of pre-set reduced quantities of extinguishant tested. This data revealed, as a 

hypothetical example, that an agent capacity of 2 kg may be observed in test to extinguish fires 

under certain conditions 30% of the time, 3 kg 60% of the time, and 5 kg 90% of the time. The 

actual suppression system mass capacities and corresponding effectiveness data collected in this 

cited test series were correlated to the cargo and fighter aircraft platforms considered in this 

project. 

For cargo aircraft, the net cost change per single percent change increase in extinguishing 

effectiveness (i.e., 91 percent successful vs. 90 percent field success) of the fire system was 

approximately $-2.0M (thus, the benefit (in terms of increased assets saved) of increasing the 

success rate of the extinguisher system by just one percent increases the overall benefit (or 

negative cost) by this amount, even including the overall cost of the larger system). For fighter 

aircraft, the net cost change per single percent change in extinguishing effectiveness of the fire 

system was approximately $-2.5M. These estimates showed that additional investment in 

optimizing fire suppression system performance pays off considerably in assets saved. 

Due to the lack of extensive FOS data, it is recommended that a test program be developed to 

provide better refinement of the existing FOS data, and to reaffirm the hypothesis that the 

9
optimal effectiveness will provide the most dividends (cost savings). This analysis is detailed in 

a separate report. [7] 

CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY 

There are a large number of contributing factors that must be considered when deciding which 

fire suppression system to select for a new platform, or whether to retrofit the fire suppression 

system on a legacy platform. These include both objective cost factors and subjective value 

factors. Accordingly, the NGP has developed a methodology to quantify a fire suppression 

technology by its total life cycle cost, and to enable superimposing on this a subjective value 

system. The methodology determines the net cost of the fire suppression system: the cost of the 

system (which is a function of system size/weight) minus the cost savings provided by the 

system (which are a function of extinguishant effectiveness and result in aircraft saved). 

The example used in developing the methodology is a comparison of an existing halon 1301 

system and a system of equivalent and altered performance to halon 1301 using an off-the-shelfalternative, HFC-125. This methodology was developed to be applicable to both legacy 

platforms (for decision makers who must consider retrofit costs for existing platforms) and future 

platforms (for decision makers currently designing new platforms). This methodology has been 

used to examine the costs of Halon 1301 and HFC-125 for aircraft engine nacelle applications 

for example cargo, fighter, and rotary-wing aircraft. 

Based on the studies performed to date, it appears that the benefit of having either fire 

suppression system substantially outweighs its cost, and the difference in total cost of the two 

systems is modest compared to the total cost of owning and operating the aircraft. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was part of the Department of Defense's Next Generation Fire Suppression 

Technology Program, funded by the DoD Strategic Environmental Research and Development 

Program under DSS-W contract number SP0700-96-D-4000. The COTR for this effort was Mr. 

Martin L. Lentz (U.S. Air Force 46th TW/OGM/OL-AC). 

The author would like to acknowledge the following organizations and individuals for their 

assistance with this project. 

• C-17 System Program Office – Lt. Josh Bohnart, Capt. Brian Godfrey, and Mr. Daniel 

Hamblin 

• NAWCAD (F/A-18 E/F) – Mr. Greg Drohat 

• NAVAIR (Lakehurst) – Mr. Bill Leach, Mr. Marco Tedeschi, Mr. Don Bein 

• NAVAIR (China Lake) – Mr. Joe Manchor 

• Comanche Program Manager’s Office – Mr. Scott Silies, Mr. Todd Miller, Mr. Glenn Wolf 

• Pacific Scientific – Mr. Bill Meserve 

10
• Walter Kidde Aerospace – Mr. Terry Simpson 

• DuPont – Mr. Daniel W. Moore 

• AFMC LSO/SGISA – Ms. Shelia Huis 

• WPAFB ASRF – Mr. Neil Blevins 

REFERENCES 

1. Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology: Strategy for A National Program, 

Department of Defense, Office of the Director, Defense Research and Engineering, July 

1996. 

2. "The Impact of Halon Replacement On Aircraft Engine Bay Fire Protection System Design", 

G. Roberts, G. Doria, and T. Breeden, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Presented at the 

HALON Options Technical Working Conference, Albuquerque, NM, April 27 - 29, 1999. 

3. "Assessing The Cost Impact Of Fire To The U.S. Air Force", M.L. Kolleck and J.M. Bennett, 

Presented at the International Aircraft Fire and Cabin Safety Research Conference, Atlantic 

City, NJ, November 16-20, 1998. 

4. SURVIAC TR-00-006, “Cost Analysis of Fire Suppression Systems For Cargo Aircraft”, 

M.L. Kolleck, M.V. Bennett, and K.L. Mercer, Technical Report, Booz Allen Hamilton, 

Dayton, Ohio, January 2002. 

5. SURVIAC TR-01-005, “Cost Analysis of Fire Suppression Systems For Fighter Aircraft”, 

M.L. Kolleck, M.V. Bennett, and K.L. Mercer, Technical Report, Booz Allen Hamilton, 

Dayton, Ohio, January 2002. 

6. SURVIAC TR-02-007, “Cost Analysis of Fire Suppression Systems For Rotary-Wing 

Aircraft”, M.L. Kolleck, M.V. Bennett, and K.L. Mercer, Technical Report, Booz Allen 

Hamilton, Dayton, Ohio, April 2002. 

7. SURVIAC TR-01-006, “Cost Analysis of Fire Suppression Systems Methodology Using 

Altered Fire Suppression Performance”, M.L. Kolleck, M.V. Bennett, and K.L. Mercer, 

Technical Report, Booz Allen Hamilton, Dayton, Ohio, January 2002. 

11