Minutes of the NDIA Program Management Systems Committee (PMSC)
Hosted by Northrop Grumman
Baltimore, Maryland April 25 and 26, 2007
Wednesday April 25, 2007
Government-Industry Joint Session
Bob Loop, PMSC Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15am. Bob Loop reviewed the agenda
and announced some minor changes to the day’s agenda. Bob requested comments and questions
from the last meeting held in January at Pratt Whitney, none were raised. Introductions of all in
attendance then followed. Patti Tisone of Northrop Grumman welcomed the committee and
provided an orientation of the facility and safety moment. Patti then introduced Suzanne
Jenniches Sector Vice President & General Manager of the Government Systems Division of
Northrop Grumman Corporation. Ms Jenniches provided and overview of the Northrop
Grumman Corporation and their use of EVMS as a Program Management discipline.
Loop – PMSC Overview – Bob Loop (No Charts Attached)
Bob Loop offered a brief overview of the NDIA and PMSC as it was anticipated that there would
be numerous first time attendees from the civilian agencies of the federal government. As it
turned out, most all in attendance have had previous association with the PMSC so the overview
was rather brief.
Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) Working Group – Joe Houser (Charts Attached)
Joe discussed the recent activities of the Working Group. The Working Group has established the
objectives to review existing IBR guide and determine if it should be revised to reflect changes in
the environment that would justify a revision or clarifications that would improve results of IBRs.
In addition, the Working Group verified consistency between the IBR Guide and recent other
documents or NDIA EVM Guides such as the DoD EVMIG, the Capital Programming Guide,
and/or the EVM FAR Clause
The Working Group determined a number of recommendations relative to updating the Guide,
each of these were discussed. Joe discussed the need for a unique acronym list associated with
the IBR Guide. Discussion ensued from the body but it was decided not to have a unique
acronym list and instead to pursue a common list across all NDIA Guides. In addition, there was
discussion related to the need to have a code of conduct section in the IBR Guide – opinions were
expressed and it was decided by the body to include as part of the Working Group efforts. The
committee decided to add language to the forward reflecting OMB IBR requirements and to
include references to program level IBRs to the Guidance section. The committee further decided
to include the recommendations of the Working Group regarding expectations and assumption as
well as program management aspects. Further, it was decided to add risk management to the
items covered in program management aspects
Contracting Working Group - Mike Martin and Beverly Soloman (Charts attached)
Mike and Beverly presented the recent activity of the Contracting Working Group. They
discussed the effort of cross coordination with DoD Working Group on contracts – the two
groups are attempting to select the high value pay back items that will most benefit the EVM and
Program Management community. The two teams also decided on some division/ownership of
items to be covered such as Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) and the CPI/SPI as award fee
criteria issue.
The team has decided to focus on the following areas that affect contracting:
Contracting Issues
o Contract versus EVM System Order of Precedence
o Integrated and virtual team (badge less) subcontracting / teaming arrangements
o Subcontractor compliance, validation and surveillance
o Response time for final reports and system description reviews
o Communication between EVM and Contracting communities
Application Issues:
o Flow down requirements
o Clarifying thresholds for contracting/subcontracting for follow-on options
o Application of reporting requirements
o Ownership and control of Management Reserve
o IBR Timing
Mike and Beverly outlined that the path forward for the items above needs to tightly defined.
Mike expressed concern about achieving consensus on the issues and resolutions. This created
discussion with several comments from floor – contracting items as presented does not include
stakeholders from contracting community of civilian, DoD, and others – this is focused on EVM
folks – response is that sub team is working to identify those other stakeholders and to get them
involved Question from floor regarding timing of the resulting products from the Working
Groups efforts such as presentation and revision of the EVMIG – the team stated that they are
working the issues and that they will be defining soon.
Final recommendation from the floor - Recommendation to include Pat Corrigan in the activities
of this sub team.
Services Working Group – Dale Gillam (Charts attached)
Background:
The Services Sub-committee has been chartered to develop and recommend policy, process
guidance, and/or training to support the implementation of EVMS on services type work
The Sub-committee has created a consolidated list of problems, issues, and/or challenges
encountered in the application of EVMS to services work. To ensure we have captured key
information from your experiences to help us frame our path forward, please answer the
following questions.
For context, the FAR (37.101) defines services as:
“’Service contract’ means a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor
whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of
supply. A service contract may be either a nonpersonal or personal contract. It can also cover
services performed by either professional or nonprofessional personnel whether on an individual
or organizational basis. Some of the areas in which service contracts are found include the
following:
(1) Maintenance, overhaul, repair, servicing, rehabilitation, salvage, modernization, or
modification of supplies, systems, or equipment.
(2) Routine recurring maintenance of real property.
(3) Housekeeping and base services.
(4) Advisory and assistance services.
(5) Operation of Government-owned equipment facilities, and systems.
(6) Communications services.
(7) Architect-Engineering (see Subpart 36.6).
(8) Transportation and related services (see Part 47).
(9) Research and development (see Part 35).”
Question 1: Is the FAR definition encompassing of your understanding of services work?
Answer 1: Yes _X___
No _____
Elaboration:
The group consensus was that the FAR definition was encompassing of services work. Some
elaborations were provided to expand on the example list in the FAR definition, such as staff
augmentation and Seta type work, which could fall under example 4 or be added to the list. After
some related discussion, Dale asked if there was anyone who did not think the FAR definition
was encompassing of services work. No one spoke up. Dale said he would accept no objection
as meeting the definition was encompassing.
Question 2: Is EVMS useful on services work as defined only in the FAR definition?
Answer 2: Yes _X___
No _____
It Depends _____
Elaboration:
After related discussion, the group consensus was that EVMS is useful on services work. In this
discussion, Dale provided the scenario of a contract or program that only used the LOE EV
technique and asked the question of whether or not EVMS was useful on this type of program.
The group consensus was that it was. Key points from the discussion was that while EVMS is
useful on all contacts and programs, it is important to scale the EVMS to balance the benefits
with the program risks and other important aspects of the program to meet the intent while not
going overboard with the solution implemented. Additionally, the group consensus was that it is
important to look for ways to define objective measurements to help in quantifying Earned Value
since this aspect of measurement and reporting is a core aspect of implementing EVMS. There
was some additional discussion that in regards to implementing EVMS on services work, one
should also look at rolling the implementation up to the program level vice at the contract level to
help increase the resulting benefits.
Question 3: Is EVMS useful on services work as defined by the FAR with your changes or
additions in Answer 1?
Answer 3: Yes ____
No _____
It Depends _____ Not Applicable __X___
Elaboration:
This question became OBE due to the answer to question 1.
Question 4: Is EVMS compatible with a performance-based acquisition contract? FAR
(37.102) states that based on the FAR definition, performance-based acquisition (see
Subpart 37.6) is the preferred method for acquiring services.
Answer 4: Yes __X__
No _____
It Depends _____
Elaboration:
The group consensus was that PBA and EVMS were compatible.
Question 5: What are your major problems, issues, and/or challenges with implementing
EVMS on services work?
Answer 5:
Attendees were asked to provide Dale with specifics in response to question 5.
Scheduling Working Group - David Treacy (Charts Attached)
Dave started the Scheduling Working Group status discussion by stating his intent to brief the
charter and ask body to approve charter. Dave outlined some of the common scheduling issues
confronting the working group including:
o Lack of best practices and dissemination within Industry and Government.
o Critical Path Level and Techniques
o Understanding the depth and breadth of IMS DID
o Clarification of requirements
o Understanding the nature of the work (LOE, Services, Discrete, Product-oriented)
o Mixed-use (acquisition vs. O&M) Contract and Task Order scheduling requirements
o Application factors (cost, risk, complexity, concurrency)
o Appropriate time for baselining
o Incorporation of risk in schedule baseline (ES, LS)
o Reporting schedule status against deadlines vs. constraints
o Roles and responsibilities - CAM vs. Program Control
o Risk Assessment Frequency vs. Float (Schedule Margin (Reserve) Management)
o Schedule Update Frequency
o Integration of cost and schedule
o Schedule control process and mechanisms
The committee had significant discussion relative to the common issues. It was a general
consensus that program management maturity in the discipline of scheduling is at issue. Dave and
the working group are focused enhancing the level of understanding of scheduling terms, process,
and schedule quality assessment. Dave asked the member of the committee for input and/or
additions to be sent to him.
Dave then moved to a discussion of the draft charter for the Scheduling Working Group. Dave
outline that the charter of the working group would have three primary elements in scope:
1. Develop a communication plan to publish the benefits of an IMS
2. Identify and catalog best practices
Comments from the committee suggested that the working group identify sources and
discuss why each of the items are considered best practices
In addition the committee suggested the catalog of best practices needs to be vetted
through the body. It is anticipated that the working group will return to the
committee some time before November for group to vet and approve.
3. Assess need for government-wide direction/requirement (i.e. FAR Clause) and formulate
a recommendation
In closing, Dave asked for comments and for approval of charter. Substantial discussion ensued
surrounding whether or not the charter includes the new “trip wires” from DCMA and any
resulting assessment of the validity of the BEI and CPLI metrics.
Gay Infanti motion – to approve the charter as presented and to continue activities towards
developing a white paper as identified in Dave’s presentation
Seconded by – Gary Humphries
Passed by majority vote
Further discussion ensued of the intent of this scheduling working group effort - is it focused on
developing policy/intent or promoting best practice for scheduling. This was extended into
discussion of the end state of this committee to be a white paper or a guide. Dave stated that the
team needs to continue to work and determine what is most appropriate then come back to the
committee and determine next steps and further definition of end state.
XML Working Group – Joan Ugljesa (Charts Attached)
Joan Ugljesa briefed the status of the working group. The end objective of the working group is to
develop and publish a library of XML schemas for project management using a formal
international standard (ISO, UN/CEFACT) that can be cited in contracts and requirements. Joan
outlined that the intent was to develop a common vocabulary for XML and the need to create
common data library so as to diminish the need for people to re-invent the wheel for the targeted
schemas focused on government reporting requirements. The working group has been very
successful in its 2 year effort associated XML schemas in relative terms the team has completed a
great deal.
The schemas are designed for targeted data exchanges including schedule data, cost data, contract
and project summary data, funding data (e.g., Contract Performance Report (CPR). Contract
Funds Status Report (CFSR), and auxiliary data (reporting structures, calendars, resources,
thresholds). The working group has been participating with the OSD central repository effort and
the team has done some testing with the schemas successfully passing data. There was
substantial discussion among the committee regarding several companies desire/need to embed
graphics into CPR format 5, the answer was yes XML will accept graphics but that most of this
needs to be accomplished via the s/w vendors listed on slide 10 of the presentation. Significant
discussion ensued regarding the manipulation of data relative to completing format 5s and the
flexibility text formats including attaching files like word files and or pdf . Question from the
floor, will this include new/pending CFSR format and new fields –response was that the team is
aware of the revised requirement and that there will be code adds needed, the team is working
these items.
More information regarding XML Working Group activities can be found on the DAU website or
the CORE.gov web site (see attached charts for URL details)
FAA Update – Keith Krazert (Charts Attached)
Keith presented FAA’s progress in Earned Value Management. Keith reiterated FAA's goal to
manage the entire program using EVM in accordance with the ANSI standard not just the
contractor. Keith reviewed the goals and transformation objectives of FAA relative to the
implementation and use of EVM stating the desire of the agency to be “best in class” among the
federal government space. Keith detailed the specific functional areas that are being affected by
and participating in the transformation to wide-spread use of EVM. FAA EVM transformation is
affecting other areas of the Acquisition Management System such as:
- Procurement
- WBS
- Risk and MR
- Cost Estimation
- Program Reporting
- Systems Engineering
- Standard Program Milestones
- Performance Data Gathering
FAA wants Program Managers to be using information to manage all facets of the program
lifecycle. FAA is attempting to institutionalize baseline management and what that means for the
ability to forecast what is over the horizon on programs. FAA believes that EVM is the means to
better management of programs as well as a means of getting FAA off the GAO high risk list.
Although FAA is exempt from FAR the agency is working to incorporate the intent/spirit of the
EVM FAR rule. Keith went on to detail the fact that FAA is developing a surveillance and
certification process for agency. They intent to accept DCMA AA’s but for those contractors
without a DCMA authored AA FAA will do their own EVMS validations once the certification
process is in place. FAA will not be using DCMA for EVM activities for across the board
support.
FAA continues to be very active in assisting other civilian agencies in their path towards EVM
implementation. This includes being very active with the COEYE, assisting agencies such as
Social Security, and Education. Further, FAA continues to work with Department of
Transportation in the areas of departmental EVM policy and guidance.
Bob Loop post lunch announcements (No Charts Attached)
Bob Loop announced election of officers per the NDIA PMSC Charter, nominations are due to
Bob via email by May 15th. Elections will be at the August 7th during the Industry only session.
Surveillance Guide Walk-on Pete Deacon (No Charts Attached)
The original Surveillance Guide Working Group will reconvene to take a look at the Surveillance
Guide and determine the need for any potential update. It is intended that this effort will be
accomplished over the next few meetings. Further a request for new committee members was
made, with specific request for Government participation.
MDA Update – Dave Melton (Charts Attached)
Dave Melton provided a brief overview of the EVM activities going on at MDA. MDA is
working to establish a process / forum for communicating EVM contractual requirements
internally with Program offices, PCOs, Program Element Monitors. MDA is working hard to get
incentives such as CPI and SPI out of the Award Fee criteria. This has been made important
because of the fact that many PCOs are outside of the MDA organization. It was stated that
difficulties have been occurred because of lack of communication across organizations and a need
for additional training. It was discussed that there is a need for better communicating of EVM to
MDA Senior Mgmt. Dave stated that MDA is placing greater emphasis on establishing range of
EACs from multiple sources with the initiative to have contractor EACs to be more or in better
relation to the other ranges of EACs. MDA is using format 4 more and more to validate EACs
from contractors. Dave stated that the MDA oversight model is changing to include QER and the
new PCB that with emphasis on baseline integration of technical, cost, schedule and others to be
more closely integrated and reviewed – to better keep track of impacts on 9 major programs
resulting from individual baseline slips.
Dave presented EVM Health Factors used by MDA and the current and projected status with the
likelihood that a number of yellow items should be changing to green very soon.
Dave expressed need for more JSR’s and how well they have gone in the recent past and how
they have helped his organization. MDA has MOAs for DCMA support, however, Dave is
concerned that system level certification/surveillance will hinder the program level support that
has worked well in the past and with which there has been success.
Department of the Navy Status – Kathy Llewellyn (Charts Attached)
Kathy briefed on the status of the Department of the Navy’s EVM activities starting with the
background on the purpose and goals of Navy Center of Excellence for EVM (CEVM). Kathy
provided background on EVM IPT and the associated driver for establishment of the Center being
the Navy audit. The new Charter for the Center was signed on April 7, 2007. The primary
purpose of the center is the effective and consistent implementation of EVM across all Navy
programs. The CEVM established an IPT which provided recommendations for:
1. Policy and regulations for EVM and acquisition planning
2. Conducting contractor EVM System reviews
3. Providing technical and program support, improving latency/accuracy of EVM data,
providing analysis to leadership
4. Determining training needs, ensuring consistent and effective training standards, and
creating and maintaining a mobile training team
Not withstanding the information above, Kathy stated that for FY 2007, EVM will be reported as
a material deficiency to the Secretary of the Navy.
Kathy provided and overview and discussion of the Navy EVM Center organization structure
with state of the recent new hires as well as remaining open positions. In addition, Kathy
introduces Beau Willis as the new Director of Navy Center for EVM. Beau provided a brief
overview of his goals and objectives. The primary functions of the Center are acquisition
planning, program support, oversight, and training. In addition, the Center has responsibilities for
reporting and resourcing/funding. The Center will provide monthly performance assessments on
ACAT 1-4 programs with EVM requirements and will establish performance metrics.
NASA Update – Tommy Watts (Charts Attached)
Tommy provided the NASA update. Tommy discussed the NASA EVM Policy, stating that
NASA HQ is proceeding with the implementation of NPR 7120.5D. The agency review of the
NPR 7120.5D document has been completed and has been approved by the NASA Administrator
effective March 6, 2007. Tommy detailed some of the requirements stating that EVM principles,
as defined by ANSI/EIA-748, is to be applied to all cost reimbursable or incentive contracts
exceeding $20M, and that a fully validated EVMS would be required for contracts
exceeding $50M. Some of the associated specifics for contracts and subcontracts, application of
an EVMS is required as follows:
1. For development or production (including flight and ground support) contracts and
subcontracts valued at $20M or more, the contractor EVMS must comply with the
guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard-748.
2. For development or production (including flight and ground support) contracts and
subcontracts valued at $50M or more, the contractor EVMS must be formally validated
and accepted by the contracting officer.
3. EVM is not required for grants or contracts of less than 12 months duration, nondevelopmental level-of-effort engineering support services, steady-state operations, basic
and applied research, and routine services, however, application is at the discretion of the
program/project manager.
4. High Risk/Visible Projects-Discretion of the PM
Tommy provided an update on the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) stating that effort is
continuing toward issuance of the final rule. No specific date for release was provided.
Additional EVM efforts within NASA include looking at how NASA will do Validations and
Surveillance on NASA in-house EVM Systems. NASA does have an MOU with DCMA but this
does not cover in-house systems; however NASA is working to define a validation and
surveillance process based on internal capabilities and best practices. Tommy provided some
insight on the status of the NASA EVM Handbook stating that it is complete but is pending the
final correlation with the approved NPR 7120.5D policy. Once this is completed and receives
Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE) approval, the EVM Handbook will be released. It was
further stated that a Scheduling Handbook is in the works at NASA and also will be released
upon final approval by OCE. It is unclear how this effort relates to the Scheduling Course that is
in the roll out phase at DAU. The NASA Scheduling handbook will be a driving factor of how
programs/projects contract for scheduling and it will include information on how NASA does
internal scheduling. The emphasis will be on consistency and common approaches to scheduling
– definitions, “how to’s”, and analysis of schedules were cited as example of content.
OSD Update – Debbie Tomsic (No Charts Available)
Debbie discussed the ongoing efforts of OSD to update the policy documents to reflect the
changes approved in March 2005:
o DoDI 5000.2 – OSD is staffing a fact of life revision to the 5000.2; no date for release was
provided. The March 2005 policy memorandum continues to serve as the interim policy
document.
o EVMS DFARS – the final rule has cleared the DAR Council. The next step is to forward the
clauses to OMB for review and approval. No date for release in the Federal Register was
provided but hopefully this will occur in the next few months.
Debbie announced that the USD(AT&L) signed the letter to the President and CEO of NDIA
recognizing the EVMS Intent Guide for DoD use. As a result, Appendix I was removed from the
EVMIG and replaced with a reference to the Intent Guide. The updated EVMIG is now available
on the DCMA web site.
CFSR – OSD is now starting to adjudicate the comments received as of March. Debbie
committed to provide the revised version of the CFSR DID after adjudication.
ANSI Standard – OSD is preparing a letter to acknowledge DoD’s continued recognition of the
standard. Given that the balloting process is ongoing with GEIA, and provided no issues surface,
the letter will be presented to the USD(AT&L) for signature at the appropriate time.
DAU continues to make progress on the new scheduling course. The student pilot has slipped
from April to mid-summer, but the course is still expected to be completed in time to support the
FY08 course offerings.
OSD continues to dialogue on the issue of using CPI/SPI as incentive fee criteria. The goal is to
ensure the contracting community understands the implications from an EVM perspective and to
recommend alternative EVM-related metrics that are objective in nature.
Debbie and Ron Lile continue to work the situational awareness initiatives. The central data
repository pilot is going well. Data flowing into the central repository is demonstrating that the
CPR data upload is working. In the June time frame Debbie and Ron plan to meet with the
USD(AT&L) to provide a status update on the pilot project and to recommend that it be expanded
to start phasing in other ACAT 1 programs. In addition, they plan to initiate efforts to start
getting additional data/formats into the central repository, such as the CFSR and the IMS.
DCMA Update – Debbie Tomsic for Dave Kester (Charts Attached)
Debbie expressed Dave Kester’s regrets for not being at the meeting and extended an invitation to
meet with him at the CPM conference in Clearwater, where he is presenting a practice
symposium session.
Debbie provided a high-level overview of DCMA’s efforts to reassert its authority and
responsibilities as DoD’s executive agent for EVMS. The USD(AT&L) signed out a
memorandum in late April communicating his continued recognition and support of DCMA’s
role in this regard.
Debbie provided a status update on DCMA’s efforts to staff the EVM Center, stating that several
job offers had been made to fill the GS-13/14 level vacancies. The EVM Center is also making
progress in filling at least six GS-15 level positions.
Debbie stated that Dave Kester would be presenting the tripwires process at the CPM conference.
She mentioned that, while the tripwires were not part of the standard DAES briefing package, the
information is being used as talking points during the meetings. Dave asked Debbie to convey
that he has received questions from contractors about whether the tripwires data is going to be
shared with industry. The answer is yes, but at the appropriate time and not in advance.
Debbie noted that DCMA is in the process of developing an EVMS Review Operating Manual
and an EVMS Surveillance Manual. The purpose of these manuals is to provide uniform
operating procedures for use across the Agency. DCMA is using the NDIA Surveillance Guide
as applicable and will share the manuals with industry at the appropriate time.
Debbie also stated that DCMA is currently providing support to OSD on six ongoing NunnMcCurdy unit cost certifications.
In response to a comment from the floor, there was significant debate about whether DCMA’s
efforts constitute a fundamental shift away from the approach implemented under the auspices of
Acquisition Reform. There was also discussion about the need to communicate the changes
between the government and industry at senior levels.
Bob Loop Trip Wires (Charts attached)
Bob Loop briefly reviewed Dave Kester’s latest Trip Wire presentation. The industry was
concerned with the BEI metric providing incentive for planning to late dates. They also
expressed concern the charts were never briefed to industry until long after they were actively
used in the DAES process and some members had already been asked to assist in the preparation.
Thursday April 26, 2007
Government-Industry Joint Session
Bob Loop, PMSC Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15am. Bob then reviewed the day’s
agenda which included some significant changes and a planned earlier closure of the joint
session. Bob then provided a brief introduction and discussion on the startup of the Civilian
Agency Working Group.
Defense Cost and Resource Center Update – Dr. Ron Lile (No Charts Available)
Ron provided an overview and discussion of a number of issues and efforts associated with
DCARC activities including:
o Ron briefed that a memo was signed out by the CAIG Chairman on 24 April making the new
DIDs for CCDR and SRDR effective on all RFPs released after May 31, 2007
o
As of the 1st of May DCARC is launching a new website with new look and feel. All related
documents will be available here including new forms
o
The government will hold a working session in June with DCMA to determine what
information is currently available from contractors and not currently being used but that may
be available to the government for business base evaluations.
o
Central Repository discussion – one of the goals of the pilot has been to determine what form
factor (PDF, XML, other) should be used for the go forward approach. Seven of the nine
pilot programs are switching to XML to attempt data transfer and how that will work. Web
services is not a requirement for the pilot, however web service will be a future task
o
Ron briefed how data from central repository will be used by OSD as contractors deliver
monthly data – 10 day period for the Government PMO/PEO to review – then on day 10 data
goes to AT&L and is available through DAMIR. Ron stated that there is ongoing discussion
that DCMA should be in first 10 day window for analysis. This is intended to coincide with
Dave Kester’s desire for DCMA to have access to “real time” data. Industry expressed
concern that government analysis will be exclusive of the entire picture from contracts and
PMO inputs.
o
Pilot has lost a couple programs and is down from nine to seven. Ron stated that only one
program is not yet compliant with all the requirements of the pilot. Ron further stated that
DCARC is postponing the IMS pilot/development process for various reasons one being the
size of files.
Question from the floor with regard to format 5 of CPR - how to handle couple issues on file size
and embedded graphics and form factored preferred pdf, xml. – answer, Ron will investigate with
DCARC IT Folks and get back to the committee, but that he did not think there would be a
specific form factor for format 5 (this item is relative to the discussion during the XML Working
Group discussion above).
Question from the floor - Is Ron forming a new EVMS working group – Ron, no new working
group, may have heard that internal to the government they are starting to work to analyze all data
source/content being received to determine overlap, gaps, and efficient use of funds. Government
is attempting to assess - is there overlap in initiatives
Question from the floor - Did Ron and Debbie Tomsic have a meeting with Shay Assad regarding
the central repository – answer, yes – regarding the CSDR initiative. Mr. Assad ask them to
engage Dave Ahern on EVMS and CSDR issues but no other meeting has occurred – content is
anticipated to be relative to contracting issues and getting appropriate requirements on contract.
Presentation by Walt Cooper - Weapon System Sustainment:
A Project to Identify Requirements for Collection of Contractor Costs
Walt described for the committee the magnitude and content of weapon system operating and
support costs. He then described for the committee for this session his project to identify
requirements for collection of operating and support (O&S) costs. Walt’s effort is focused on
collecting O&S costs in contractor-provided sustainment strategies for use in doing independent
cost estimates and in preparing budgets and programs. Walt indicated that the DoD established
the Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) program more than
30 years ago. VAMOSC is the DoD’s only source of actual costs associated with fielded weapon
systems. Each of the services approaches VAMOSC differently in scope, approach, sources of
data, and level of automation. Walt stated that a shift is taking place from organic support (within
government) of weapon systems to support provided by industry partners – UAV is an example
of where O&S costs are virtually all related to contractor support.
Walt provided the following key points about his project:
Requested by OSD (AT&L)
• Co-sponsored by OSD (AT&L) and OSD CAIG
• Collaborative effort among OSD and all three Military Departments
• Objective: To recommend policy and procedures for collection of contractor costs in
weapon system sustainment arrangements
• To be completed by fall 2007
Walt welcomed the opportunity to introduce this project to the committee. He
indicated he would like to meet with committee membership at the next meeting to
conduct more detailed discussions of the project prior to its implementation.
Close of meeting