AFRB MDD Template

Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Headquarters U.S. Air Force
Integrity - Service - Excellence
ICEAA
Air Force Cost Analysis Agency
Space Analysis of Alternatives
Amanda Wilson
Dave Macdonald
Mariam Uzunyan
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Outline





Background
AoA Basics
AoA Methods
Decision Support
Observations
An artist's concept of the three AEHF satellites.
Credit: Lockheed Martin
2
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Cost Efforts
Space Portfolio

Prior AoA’s have not involved CAPE/CA or PA&E/RA

‘94 Summer Study used to justify SBIRS concept
 SAF/AQ proposed National Team concept after loss of a MILSTAR
satellite for accelerated replacement concept (led to AEHF)

New Paradigm - Cost Assessment Working Group (CAWG) report
directly to CAPE(CA)

Provided layer between CAWG and AoA Study Director to provide
independent cost analysis
 Included all cost elements (i.e., Space, Ground, Launch, Sustainment)
 Balanced promise of new technology with historical development
cycles and realistic technical baselines
 Takes away ability of CAPE to question AoA sufficiency from a cost
perspective
3
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Cost Efforts (cont.)

CAPE approached AFCAA and asked them to lead CAWG for two
space AoAs: (1) Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Follow-on
and (2) Protected Satellite Communications Services (PSCS)

Previous efforts internal to Air Force Commands
 Previously AFCAA played either no role or advisor role

AFCAA estimating process used to ensure consistent results






Independent tech assessments (weight, power, heritage, software)
Realistic acquisition strategies
Independent schedule assessments (development, build)
Broad involvement from DoD Agencies and IC community enabling wide
data access and defendable cost database regressions
Consistent application of methods to mitigate bias toward an alternative
Collectively solved previous AoA weaknesses and criticisms
4
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Model – SBIRS FO & PSCS
5
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Study Team Example
SAG Co-Chairs
OSD/CAPE & OUSD/AT&L/SSI
• Study Plan
• Study Guidance
• ADM
Study Director
AFSPC/A5F & NRO/MID
Working-level Integrated
Product Team (WIPT)
Study Technical Leads
AFSPC/A5F & NRO/SED
Study Integrator
Technical Advisor / RAT Lead
CAPE
AT&L/SSI
OAS
MDA
NGA
Effectiveness
Analysis WG
(EAWG)
*Cost
Analysis WG
(CAWG)
Technology &
Alternatives WG
(TAWG)
Threats &
Scenarios WG
(TSWG)
Operational
Concepts WG
(OCWG)
AFSPC/A9
AFCAA
SMC/XR
MDA & AFSPC/A2
AFSPC/A3 & NGA
Ground
*CAWG is a direct report to OSD/CAPE
Space
Communications
Proposed Joint Participation
6
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Cost Process




AoA Study Plan defined scope and goals of analysis – think of this
as “what questions are we trying to answer”
Collective Team defined Ground Rules and Assumptions
Estimating process even handed across all possible solutions
Creative products to support Trades and Assessment of Alternatives
7
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AFCAA CAWG Leadership
Unique Strengths

Early CAPE Involvement

Collaborative Collection of Data
 Formulation of Defensible Methods

Cross Agency Cost Team

IC, MDA, and Air Force participation
 Analogous programs’ data and methods
 Increased Perspective

AFCAA Best Practices







Schedule estimating
Advanced Phasing methods
Satellite Sizing Model
TRL / Heritage calculators
Phase A methods
Ground / Sustainment modeling
Benchmarking analysis
8
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Methods






Independent Tech Baseline Assessments
Heritage Assessments
Schedule Analysis
Cost Analysis Methods
Cost Data Sheets
Cost Model Development
9
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Independent
Technical Baseline Assessment
Total SV Mass
12000
AFCAA Predicted Mass
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
TAWG Mass
10
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Heritage Assessments
Consider Technology & Derivative Impacts
Development costs informed by unbiased heritage assessments
11
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Schedule Analysis
Considers Contract Strategy
Arch T
15
16
Phase A
Pre-Acq
Phase A
17
18
19
20
Type D
21
22
23
Type A&B Aggregated
Storage
25
26
27
28
24
Arch V
AB 1
15
Pre-Acq
Pre-Acq
Phase A
16
17
18
Phase A
19
Type E
20
21
22
23
E1
15
Pre-Acq
16
Pre-Acq
Phase A
17
18
19
D1
D2
30
31
D3
D4
Type C&D Aggregated
Storage & Integration
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Arch X
Pre-Acq Phase A
Phase A
Type C
20
21
22
AB 3
AB 2
29
CD 1
E3
E2
CD 2
17
22
35
Ab 4
32
33
CD 3
Cd 4
23
24
25
26
Storage & Integration
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
A4
A5
A6
30
31
32
33
F5
A1
C2
A2
B1
16
34
34
36
37
38
39
40
37
38
39
40
36
37
38
39
40
36
37
38
39
40
AB 6
AB 5
35
E4
36
EE 6
E5
Type B
C1
15
33
Type A
A3
Arch Y
Pre-Acq
Phase A
Pre-Acq
Phase A
18
19
20
21
31
32
23
24
*Architectures do not represent any actual AoA Architecture – Illustrative purposes only
25
Type F
Tyge G
26
27
28
29
34
35
C3
C4
B3
B2
F1
F2
F3
F4
G1
G2
G3
G4
34
35
Independent analysis ensures achievable schedule baselines
12
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Cost Methods


Primary and Crosscheck methods selected
Selection criteria:




Broad application to many alternatives (no bias)
Predicts the Air Force Missile warning mission well
Predicts Protected SATCOM mission well
Cost Drivers need to be definable/understood by tech team
13
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Cost Data Sheets



Leveraged previous experience with Technical team
Cost Data sheets populated with Estimate WBS and all required Cost
Drivers and CER inputs
Key process enabler:

Consistent and early documentation of Cost team needs
 Provided a complete Tech baseline description and configuration
control of various alternatives
14
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Decision Support
Tools and Outputs





“Baseball Cards”
Comparison Metrics
Model Outputs
Risk & Opportunities
Near-Term and Long-Term Affordability
15
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Architecture X “Baseball Card”
Architecture X
Alternative
Mean Estimate (BY14$M)
Space Vehicles
Cost to Deploy
SV Type A
SV Type B
11
6
3
SV Type C
2
Ref-A
Ref-B'
Ref-C'
Reference Number
Total Program Costs
Space Segment Acquisition Cost
Phase A
Hosting Fee
Non-recurring
Recurring
Storage
Ground Mission Control
Launch Segment
Operations & Sustainment
Current Baseline
Additional O&S
Other Government Costs
Terminal Segment
Aerial Layer
Type A Payload:
Tech Parameter A
Tech Parameter B
Type B Payload:
Tech Parameter C
Tech Parameter D
Type C Payload:
Tech Parameter E
Tech Parameter F
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
31,432 $
7,540 $
130 $
$
2,350 $
4,500 $
60 $
500 $
1,900 $
3,692 $
1,600 $
2,092 $
1,300 $
15,500
1,500
10,312 $
5,310 $
80 $
$
1,500 $
3,650 $
$
80 $
1,500 $
2,602 $
1,200 $
1,402 $
900 $
6,250
1,800
14,077
Replenishment
Arch X
15
16
Phase A
17
18
Payload % New Design
Design Life
Acquisition Strategy
Launch Vehicle
Environment
Phase A
Phase A
Type C
19
20
21
22
23
C1
C2
*Architecture X does not represent any actual AoA Architecture – Illustrative purposes only
•
1,700
1,000
30
350
500
120
Hosted
450
450
250
2,300
950
--
Hosted
240
--
75%
25%
50%
14
10
14
Open Competition
Sole Source
Atlas V 551
Hosted
Nuclear Hardened
Natural
Type A
Type B
Storage & Integration
25
26
27
28
29
30
24
ICEAA Architecture X
•

Competitive award of ___
• Sole Source _______

SV Type C
•
•
A1
A2
B1
A3
B2
•

31
32
33
A4
A5
A6
Adds capability to XYZ
Replenishment tied to
longer design life
Not in other Architecture
Additional Risk

•
Sole Source
Hosted
Natural
Same capability as SCEA
Updated to leverage
today’s technology
Acquisition Strategy
•
Bus Weight (Lbs)
Payload Weight (Lbs)
Wet Mass (Lbs)
FOC Arch Fielding
2,020 $
1,230 $
20 $
500 $
350 $
60 $
300 $
400
640 $
400 $
240 $
150 $

Schedule concerns
Industry base
Opportunities to
combine contracts
34
35
C3
36
37
38
39
40
C4
B3
16
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Metrics Comparisons


Comparisons of numerous cost estimates can be difficult
Plotting and comparing different metrics can help identify
relationships, trends, and differences
17
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Model Outputs
Sand charts presented for each alternative to show
investment requirements by appropriation
Architecture X Profile
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
Production
RDT&E
O&S
Baseline
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$-
FY16
FY17
FY18
FY19
FY20
FY21
FY22
FY23
FY24
FY25
FY26
FY27
FY28
FY29
FY30
FY31
FY32
FY33
FY34
FY35
FY36
FY37
FY38
FY39
FY40
Mean (BY14$M)

18
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
Space Affordability
Near Term and Long Term
Representative Budget Profiles (Includes PoR Baseline)
Total Investment Cost vs FYDP Cost
$3.5
$30
$3.0
$25
Arch Z
Arch W
Arch V
$2.5
Arch Y
Arch U
$15
Mean (BY14$B)
LCCE (BY14$B)
$20
Arch X
Arch T
Arch S
$10
$2.0
Mission Area PB16 FYDP
Available TOA
Arch S
Arch T
Arch U
Arch V
Arch W
Arch X
Arch Y
Arch Z
$1.5
$1.0
$5
$0.5
$$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
$-
FYDP (BY14$B)

Balanced near term / long term affordability concerns for decision makers
 FYDP affordability driven by acquisition timeline, not contents of
architecture - any architecture could be affordable in FYDP with later start –
assumes risk
 Air Force must be cognizant of “bow-wave effect” in out years
*Architectures do not represent any actual AoA Architectures – illustrative purposes only
19
Presented at the 2016 ICEAA Professional Development & Training Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com/atlanta2016
AoA Observations







Movement away from current Program of Record comes with
various degrees of cost and schedule risk
Recognized opportunities are available to do things better going
forward (e.g., commercial launch, ground automation, block buys)
Concluded benefits of disaggregation come at cost premium
Recommended enterprise resiliency strategy, notes degree of
resilience does not discriminate among the Architectures
Included cost of Ground and Comm segments plus Sustainment,
which have been historically overlooked in prior AoAs – big cost
Methods were data driven using relevant programs, does not
assume all historical problems will repeat – not overly conservative
Results represent most likely outcome given experience in these
mission areas, not intended to direct PM cost and schedule goals
20