Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEPARTMENT OF THENAVY
FEBRUARY 1973
Page SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 Eistory Responsibdities Scope 2 WEAPON SYSTEM STATUS System cost experience Possible aaddl0nal program COSTS Economic escalation -Design-to-cost concept Program funalng Contract data System performance experience System schedule eqenence Relationship to other ships Selected Acqtisdion Reporting COST ESTIMATING AND PROGRESS MEXWREMENT Ship cost-estlmting FwBJ. year 1973 budget and January 1972 estmates Lead ship costs Follow-on ship costs June 1972 estima.te Independent cost reviews Progress Measurement Current efforts Future efforts 15 16 17 1.7 18 23. 22 23 23
25
26 27 27 27 28
;:
32
DSARC Defense Systems Acquisition CNO GAO Chief of Naval Operations General Accounting Office
SUMMARY PATROL FRIGATE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND STATUS The Patrol escort ships. Frigate Its (P!?) sell mission be a new class of rmssile-equipped Navy amphblous and surface
primary
wLU be to protect
convoys against
enemy sudmarlnes
As of January 1973, the PF was designed to be 440 feet displace 3,500 tons, miles to have a sustained speed of 28 knots, The skup will
long,
to
4,500 nautxal
endurance at 20 knots.
a crew of 185 personnel. The ship will 40,000 shaft reversible be driven It -by two gas turbine will have one shaft engines, aggregating
and a controllable
include
the STANDARDnnssile
for
air
defense,
the OTO Melara 76111m gun, and and gun will system. with be directed by
Both missiles
the same launcher. two LAMPS helicopters. anti-submarme warfare long-range The
be capable
capability.
information target
for the HARPOON rmsslle. detection system, equipment includes radars (AN/SPS-49, path sonar
control
and AN/SPS-55)
and a direct
AS of January 1973, the PF program was in the ship system design phase. Maine; The contractors are the Bath Iron Works Corporation, Seattle, Washington. Bath,
be compatible for
practice, Shipyards
one particular
are to insure
second lead
to award a cost-plus-lncentlve-fee
of the lead ship to the Bath Iron Works. Renew Council (DSARC)
In February is scheduled
1975, the Defense Systems Acquisition to decide whether to approve follow-on testing of the propulsion for
ship production.
in making this
production contractors.
is approved,
the Navy plans to have the ships built SYSTEM COST EXPERIENCE As of June 30, 1972, the estimated
by three
$3,134 million
increase
of 50 ships.
of $402.5 rmllion
over the January 1972 planning was due to (1) the inclusion escalation
$2,731.5 rmllion.
fitting utilxzation characterlstlcs, system equipment
of outand planned
(2) recomputing
indices,
set of combat
at the land-based
The estimate includes the cost of detection except the ILAMPS helicopter. missiles,
separate computations for the lead ship and for the follow-on The eskmates were based upon cost experience for - other destroyer _ in the complexity of the systems and
ships.
The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) more than the
offlee's
Although the estimates were based on data available the General Accounting Office gained in detailed necessary to rense additional (GAO)believes that,
at the time, 1s
as experience
it may be in possible
program costs.
the &up may need but -wLil not get during new construction. has made weight and space reservations
The items are the Phalanx Close-in WeaponSystem, a digital system, and mecharmcal stablllzers. Program funding
As of June 30, 1972, the FF program had received development funding totaling $9.3 rmllion milllon
$12.6 rmlkon--$3.3
million
in appropriated Of this
funds and
amount, $9.7
Contract data In April totaling 1972, the Navy awarded two cost-plus-fixed-fee for ship system design support. contracts
$5 rmlllon
awarded to the Bath Iron Works and the other was awarded to Todd Shipyards In October 1972, the Navy awarded a letter-contract ceiling tion, for combat system integration Long Island, New York. mth a $12 million
SYSTEM PEKFORMANCE EXPERIENCE The PP'S planned length is 420 feet, 3,400 tons. the ship's primarily and planned displacement is increases were noted an These resulted
and refinements to the ship weight estimate. SYSTEM SCHSDULE EXPERIENCE As of September 1972, there had been no maJor schedule slippages on the program. Award of the first 1975. follow-on ship production contracts is
helicopter
for the PF is not scheduled to be of the lead ship. This helicopter will
be a new airframe.
being designed to accommodatethe existing the Navy stated that the new @K-III) to fit within the Pl?design envelope.
helicopter
is being constrained
The other weapon systems are scheduled to be available prior dehvery of the PF to the fleet. The systems identified
to
control
RELATIONSHIP TO OTKER SHIPS The Navy plans to deploy the PF Tnth existing destroyer escort shxps and ltith
such as the DE-1052 class, with the new DO-963 class destroyer, the proposed Sea Control Shxp.
ComparedFnth the DE-1052 escort, the FF ~n-ll be comparable in length, 600 tons lighter, one knot faster in sustained sp-eed, identxal The DE-1052
in endurance speed, and accommodate75 fewer personnel. has a single shaft 35,000 horsepower steam engine. The PF and the DE-1052 are Intended to operate mth, of, forces other than fast carrier the command and control of the PF will capablllty strike forces,
and In support
be superaor to the DE-1052 because the PJ? 1s designed with required to counter the an-Lx-&upping rrnssile threat The Navy stated that the DE-1052 class was to counter the
designed in the early 1960s wxth a primary capability Soviet submarine and has only self-protection missiles. According to the Navy, the DD-963 will with superior be a larger
against anti-shipping
slvp
and in support of our fast carrier fire support for amphibious forces.
The proposed Sea Control Slvp will short takeoff and landing azrcraft.
carry helicopters
and vertical/
SELEXCTED ACQUISITIOT\T REPORTING The PF program was not on the SAR system as of September 30, 1972. In view of the estrmated program cost, GAObelieves 1t should be on the
is intended to result
of simpler and lower costing weapons which meet essential This new approach is known as the "design-to-cost"
concept. _ of
The design to cost concept is being applied to the acqvusition the PF. The CNOhas placed a ceilmg dollars follow-on that if excluding shipbuilder ships. of $45 rmllion in fiscal
year 1973
escalation
in its
progra;m costs were escalated to the planned procurement years, cost for follow-on ships would be $51.5 million. They
GAOnoted that certain include million (1) $4.5 million for additional
costs are not covered by the ceihng. and post-delivery, (2) $2.8
changes, and (4) $.2 million represent the difference estimates. The inclusion
between the January 1972 and the June 1972 cost of these costs would increase the estimated
average follow-on
ship cost to $59.7 miXLion. concept, the Navy has stated such performance can be obta;Lned
obtaining maximum performance LS too hi@., a lower costing product that meets essential requirements will be bought.
-6-
the Navy should consider reducing the ceiling '?3msapproach appears to be more concept which is to needs
of the design-to-cost
acquire simpler and lower costing weapons that meet essential Ol;lly*
The Congress may wish to discuss these matters wxth the Navy. plans to review the design-to-cost Fiscal Year 1974 funds Funds for construction ye=- 1973. follow-on fiscal of the lead &up were made available concept in fiscal year 1974.
GAO
in fiscal
In February 1975, the DSARC is to decide whether to approve shz~p production. It appears, therefore, that substant~sl
not be required for the program. year funds for production of follow-on ships, the testing
of the ship's propulsion and weapon systems at land-based sites has been successfbl. In considering any request for funds to install data link the Close-an on
the ship, the Congress should be informed as to whether these items are needed in order to meet essential performance requirements or whether these
items wall provide maxxaum performance. AGENCY COMMENTS A draft of the staff study was renewed by Navy officials associated
wxth the managementof this program and commentswere coordanated at the The Navy's comments are incorporated as appropriate. ! As far as we know there are no residual differences in fact, "Vblr" c nr:"rvpc*r\ Headquarters level.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The PF ~111 be a new destroyer deploy ship In the late for 1970s. It ship class the Navy intends low-cost United that to
escort
essential
retiring
World War II destroyers. existing and planned escorts groups, against and mlli-
1s to supplement forces,
Increased mlsslle
to defend escorted
the antl-
and especially
the submarme-launched
As of January 1973, the PF was designed to be 440 feet displace 3,500 tons, miles to have a sustained speed of 28 knots,
and to have
4,500 nautical
endurance at 20 knots.
crew of 185 personnel.-The ship will 40,000 shaft verslble pitch be driven by two gas turbine engines, aggregating re-
horsepower. propeller.
and a controllable
The PF's weapons will the surface-to-surface torpedo puterized will tubes.
Include
for
air
defense,
HARPOON mrsslle,
be dlrected
work in conJunction
Both missiles
will
utilize
provides
capability. for
informatlon target
detectlon
control
report prepared by GAOon the status of the 32' from Its inception through
The Navy recognized a need to provide low-cost capable escort shiss for proteCtion as a result new threats of non-carrier naval forces and mercantile convoys The and
of two form&able
a continued vlcrease in deployment of long-range attack submaLznes. In order to maintain control non-carrier was identified of the seas, the Navy has stated that convoys must be protected. This
Project Sixty,
requested by the CNO, was conducted by the ProJect The study group stated
Sixty study group during July to September 1970. that Soviet naval forces on the world's power and that ths threat necessitates
The study showed that increasing U.S. dependence on ocean-borne shzppzng of vital resources into this country makes the increasxng Soviet threat
It concluded that the Navy would have to take some to provide adequate defense of essential
initiatives
- 10 -
In and
Septcnber I ty
for tltc m ii
1970 of
the
CXO Inltlntcd of
a study
to shrp
eYcmx.nc \Arch
a
the ~-~ld
decl.s1011
dcs:pn !JC
fcasxbl!
a pew class
mlss,on. S Cll~Tt3tL~'i~
dcstroycr-t-;pc
The CKO strcssrd
1.4~
optrmlzcd reGard:n*;
for
Iimitf~d Slllp'
that
1X W preparzng
SI T C
nccdcd
wlthln
18 month<
use In
the
Navy
s fkture
I.
budget cxamlne
submissions.
lower-cost fiscal CW alternatIves - , year 1975 xncluclcd
this DD-963
study before
to
to
the
d dcclslon provided of
fundIng. mlsslon
general possible
concept (3)
a cost that
lnrllcatcd complc.~
ec~u~pwr~t hardware
should and
s1mplc,
USC of
lntegratrd
1971
t?tc
of
tie
resJ1
ts
cf
thqs jn The
study.
designzng
a skp
range
provldG!d. and
study commence-
dercd of dcslgn
recommended explore
d comprehcnslvc details.
establlshecl of
a plan speclflc
for
prcparatxon
ob~cct~vc:~
-ll-
1.
Define
ship
and performance
rrqulrcmcnts mlsslon
to rcqulrcs!ents.
rnlnuxllze ship
2. 3. F,stmate Produce total the
cost con5lst.c
costs. with the
nt
with
program PFs at
or below
eslxmates.
Concurrent the &Duty
--~
the of CNOs Defense approval indicated ship Ihc to of the the be built of
PrOJE!Ct
wllh
Secretary
actlon
cost by the of
on a new desrgn escort about CNO in icr $50 naI.Lror,. September new, 1970
Secretary
flndlngs
the need
shrps. ship -type, weapons, ship sensors, dcslgn warfare, would In phac,c and be
system.
me,
surface
this
that perform
at would It
bcglnnxng
the conceptual
most economically that of any
the desirea
galned
cost
sovlngs
was more
offset
specialization, of $45
threshold
rend a size
stralnts
Before
studrhs the
conducted
determine produce
shlp'L
cost - -vhlch
maximumimprovement to escort force effectiveness. that any changes in the ship's characterxstlcs, thresholds, would require his approval.
RESPONSIBILITIES Primary responsibility for the managementof the Patrol Frigate Project Office,
Instruction Naval Ship Systems Command. Under Naval Ship Systems Command 5430.101, dated August 1971, the project responsible total manager's maJor task is to be
for the development and procurement of the ship and to assure for ship acquisitions level, assigned to bun.
ship systemsintegration
the Chief of Naval -_ M&terial has established the Major Surface Combatant Shxps l?roJect Office. According to Naval Material the project Command Instruction
manager 1s responsible for the planning, direction, of aXL effort within the Chief of Naval Material The PF 1s one of the
escorts (DLGN, DC), and the Sea Control Ship. has been established prxmary
Within the Office of the CNO, a program coordinator in the Ship Acquisition and Improvement Dxvlsion.
The coordinator's
serving
as the
to , CNOs
the slnglc
CW
aspecLs cor#xuct~on.
of
the
acqulsltlon,
and r oqrtorlrg _-
progress
of ship
Znformatlon reports at the on Lh1.s progr3.m ar,d other offlce and 1~s obtalned records , and by revle\llng by intervlewlng
, rntcrmcdlate the Off Ice and but supyortlng mllltary threat Involve the
co?unands of
polzcles process,
cbntrols
we did
prOJrCt
dctaxled
basic as%5~
data the
devclo;, khl I e
, or
(3)
ourselves
declslons
14
Frigate
shop
proSran
1 s currently In F.pr11
In
the
ship the
systrm Havy
phase
of the acquxiltlon
for shop system
process. design
1972,
contracts !:orks-
cupport Todd
Iron
Corporation,
Bath,
c?tslgn used
valldatron InformatIon
11.L.y lnformatl
, we have contracts
at
the
ship
date
to
performance thla of
part
SecreLary and
of
Defense of
the
Navy
to
x:lth
development procurement,
It 1~8s
construction procurcmcnt
and
stles+d testing
particular to
emphasrs
on satisfactory
weapon
system
go-ahead.
of
manqwrnr~nt
Frigate
Shxps
characterlstlcs
in
to the ProJect
Manager, a formJ.
ship acquisltlon
by March 1973. I
Our renew of the program's status as of June 30, 1972, showed that the Patrol Frzgate skup has experienced Increases In its end other changes sxnce its mceptlon. cost estxnates
schedule, and performance are presented below. SYSTEM COSTEXPERIZENCE The Navy's estimated program acqulsltlon cost for the -Patrol for the
Frxgate ship program as of June 30, 1972, was $3,134 million acquisxtion of 50 &ups.
over
an mcrease of
of $50.1million.
include these costs because estimates were not available. 2. A $136.4 million increase to to other escalation. This
of a recomputation of escalatxon
&up construction. increase due to changes in the skup's characteristics These changes are dxscussed In more detaxl on
4.
A $10.7 rmllzon increase due to recent emphaseson test and evaluation requirements. The Navy decided to retain a skup
the land-based
identifzed
Frigate
equipment,
program costs to the above, we noted other These costs, costs which could increase $75 mzlkon,
In addition
the cost of the program. are for after equipment fleet and/or
systems which are planned to go on the ship instead of during construction. In this respect,
introduction
the installation
of the Phalanx
data link
We were informed
by Navy officials
that
in program costs because no definite l-lams on the ship, has provided With respect instaXl.mg that weight
comunitment has been made to put these has been made, we found the Navy on the ship for these items. we found the Navy is ships. We found, also,
system,
mechanical
escorts. Econorolc escalation The Navy has included about $514 mLUion for price escalation of $187 Accordlny: year
in the June 30, 1972, program costs. million over the escalation included
estimate.
to a Navy official,
1s attributed
and post-delLvery
---
was computed using Bureau of Labor Statistics inckces and learning curves for material and labor based on a basic construction target cost excluclmg profit. EscaXatlon for other shpbuilder costs, support and other progr~z usmg DOD-approved
indices. -
Appendix I shorn a schedule of price escelatlon for the progrm. Design-to-cost cOnce73-t; on new
DODhas adopted the polz~cy of setting umt cost ceilings weapon sys&ms. The ceilmg 1s mteuded to result
m the acqu?.sltlon of
simpler and loTier costing weaponswhich meet essential needs 0nJ.y. This new approach is knom as the "desZ.gn-to-cost" concept. The design-to-cost concept is being applsed to the acquisitron of $45 mlllon in fzcal of
the PF. The CNOhas placed a ceilrng dollars follow-on excluding shiibmlder ships.
year 1973
that if prograz~ costs were escalated to the planned procuremnt years, the average unit cost for foIlloTs-on ships would be $51.5 million. m0 m-ted that cerkn include (3) $)+.5 mllion costs are not covered by the ceiling. for outfitting and post-dekvery, (2) $2.8 They
changes, and (4) $.2 mXL~on for test <andevaluation. amounts rs?rusent the dlifcrrncc between the
---
Jtuwuy
average follow-on
designing the ship to meet these requirements. _ Thx approach, hoT;ever, was modified for the FE in that skp perforce was influenced, on It. the to a
large extent, by the cost of systems being installed Our renew shoxredthat m its Navy is not pl=ng
contracts for ship construction, define or establish total l!Iavy officials informed us the
to conkactuaLly
performance.
We found two e:cz&es xhere perforzxnce degradations could occur in the E' for a period of tizne as a result
In one instance,
of equipment substltutlons.
a change :Tas made in ,f;he stip design to provide mstead of the one orlginall;r planned.
capabxllty As a result
the AK/SQQ-23sonar &xnned for the ship had to be given up for a lesscostly direct path .U/SQS-505 type sonar. considerably less ca?a'Cllty electronic
The AN/SW-505 sonar also has
Sirmlarly , the
--
unformed us that
substituting
We note,
the version
for the PF is not scheduled to be available the lead slmp has been delivered that performance tradeoffs
therefore,
A Navy official
the design phase, but these options phase. of this study, the Navy advised nor that in a
decrease during
the construction
In coxmm&xng on a draft design to cost program, impetus "if xilz "if and there neither
performance
1s a balancing
ca;n be obtained
the Navy
and h~,"UJ l?lzxJmm perfor&?anec . rr 'I?=e Nay enttils costs so high that to carry
atided that be at
ma&mum performance
unable to purchase the numbers necessary sea, then a tradeoff cheaper product With respect if it will
can be obtained
the Navy should conszder buying only essentaal Thxs approach appears to be more consistent concept which is to acqurc needs only.
simpler
and lower
meet cssentxCl
In v,
we believe
t2la.t measures should be Imnplemented to control It appears too early, however, to assess the this purpose.
of the dcslgn-to-cost
Before attempts are made to assess the effectiveness further study is warranted.
of this
concept,
This study shcxlld consider matters such as in the ceiling, (2) controls on operating
the (1) co&s appropriate for Inclusion needed to assure the ceiling
and other costs not covered by the ceiling, and (4) impact on military -effectiveness of sacrificing performance in order to meet the cost ceiling. GAOplans to review the design-to-cost
1974 l
concept m fuxal
year
Program f'undlng As of June 30, 1972, the PF program had received development funding totting million
$12.6 million--$3.3
rmlllon
reprogrwmed fro?r other proJects by the Navy. Of tbz~s amount, had been obligated and $2.5 rmlllon through fiscal had been expended.
$9.7 rmlfion
Funds progr-ed
Fiscal Year 1972 and prior years tilllons Development Procurement Construction Total
$12.6
-o-o$12.6
-o$193.0
- 21 -
Contract data As of June 30, 1972, two cost-plus awarded foi; irmtial milLon, fixed-fee contracts had been valued at $3.2 Bath, Maine;
was arrarded to the Bath Iron Works Corporation, valued at $1.8 milLon, Seattle, Waslangton.
As of September 1972, changes to the Bath contract increased Its value by $.4 million increased its primarily to $3.6 milLon, and changes to the Todd contract The changes
value by $ .3 million
to $2.1miUlon.
represent an dension
of selected design tasks. contract for combat system integration Great Neck, Long Island,
was awarded to the Sperry Rand Corporation, NewYork. The contract totaled
Ei 5
z z I-=5
Shpyards are to insure that the deslCn plc.ns KLXLbe compatible Tn-th general sl=pbuildlng builder. practices, rather than optunized for one particular
Also, Todd Shpyards are to insure that adequate cost comparisons is available
In June 1973, the Navy plans to award a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Bath Iron Works for construction follow-on built ship construction of the lec~d slup. If
in three chlpy,y:~rds.
The PF's characteristics and the June 30, 1972, estmate changes are shown below. Performance Size : Length Weight Weight Endurance Speed Crew A project the result official stated (full load) (light ship) charactcristzc
estimate
These
Plammg
estimate
440 feet 3,500 tons 2,400 tons 4,500 at 20 knots 28 knots 185
the above changes in size were prmarLLy iv0 L4X.E helicopters estmate. x~3tead
of zodimng
S%EDUI& EXPE3IEISCE The PF program schedule has not experienced any significant slippage
as of June 30, 1972, -Estimated 1977 and for the fix-t milestones follow-on
delivers ship,
date for the lead ship is June October 1978. Major progran estmxte
planning
are shorn belolr: Event Lead Ship contract award system February February Plmning April estimate -June 1372 esti?m:e
1973 1975
1975 of follow-on
June 1973
February February ships. 1975
1.375
Event Fxrst folloir-on ships contract Lead ship delivery First follow ' award
--
Planning
estimate 1975
February
1975
June 1977
August 1978 desired for-the
Jum 1977
October 1978 ship is not scheduled This hellcopter the lead
ship delzvery
helzxopter after
delivery
A Navy official
however, that
ship is being designed to accommodate the existing Navy stated within that the new (MN-III) helicopter
is being constrained
the PF design envelope. The STANDARDrmssile is presently operational. The HLlRPOON missile The OTO Melara
is scheduled
to be available
for dellvery
of the ship's
specifications.
T2us involves
of a missile
of a target
LLlxminat~ng
associated
system as hq-$.
The MC-92 program appears to be at least June lg$r. schcdulc. slippage proluscd A Navy official stated, CL the
3 months of this
high
making the coxmnandand control system programs function system, and the diesel tee&Cal
In our opinion,
REIATIOYSXIP TO OTXZR SKIPS The Navy plans to deploy the PY Tnth existing shps such as the DE-1052 class, the proposed Sea Control tnth Ship. the PI? KU
destroyer
escort
and with
in sustained
The X??and the DG1052 are intended of, forces other than fast and the anti-axr carrier warfare strike
and in support
capability
capabibty
to the DE-1052 because the PF 1s designed wxth the fast to counter the antL-&upping missile threat
to the protected
force.
1960s with
According with
to the Navy, the DD-963 wKlJ. be a larger sea keeping, command and control,
ship
s?lperzor endurance,
capabLlxtics
because it task
carrxer forces.
-25-
pq
I.
#Ff
The E's and the DD-$%3sare partml The proposed Sea Control Ship will takeoff forces, and landing aircraft. underway replenlshuent
ships.
be to protect
groups, merchant convoys, and other nav&L carriers. The DD-963 proGram 1s in scheduled for October
to the fleet
The DE-1052 progrm 1s nearing completion.early stwes of production with fxrst 1974.
The first Sea Control
shop delivery
before May 1978. SEL;EC!~ ACQUISITIOr;r RXPORTING The PF progrm was not mcluded in the DODSelected Acqulsitlon System as of September 30, 1972. GAObelieves it Reportmg
going
changr
q and
tt,~t
the
only
cost, design
schcauie, work
of thr
or
pel forrlsnce
on small i.!lc! ship
rela%lvel-j
mount
lnvolvcd that
ship
becoming
management belorV.
flnalrzcd.
drscusscd
has
prepared budget
Patrol SIAXUX~O~,
Frigate its
cost &wary
estwares 1912
for bascllnc
its valldntlon
:f/-\
prcpu lng
below.
thcs e est1,7ltes
and
their
validity
and ~,ealcncsscs
are
dlscusscd
Fiscal \c?r :973 budrnt -m--11_-Jarludrv 19; 2 cst1r- I es -In the Congrcss, ship progrrii Prcs~dcnts J;lnu,?ry cost
and
year the
1973 Xavy
budCct
to
the
dated
indicated
wotild
mrlllon.
At
tvrc
prepaLec.!
by ttc
liaval
Ship 1, the
Systems
Coamards
Costused cost ship fxtorc, on shrps procurement and rqcluding cor,ts. ln cntc-
An,jlysis thcsfs
(1) plans
Branch
Trig
2
es tlmztcs and
other
dcslgn
(3) costs.
program
Patrol a lead
this ~uld
Follow-09
include equIpTent,
costs
escelatlon, to compute
proglaq a:lJ
Tlw
methods art
used
dlscusscd
belou.
for
pl,KIs
rncltde
shrp
drawings and
lasxl-based
rwm
for
assnxd
complexity,
cost calculated
for
the
lead
shrp estimator
is
It5 I from
bas:c ship
Those t I
~ett by
by the Ship
the
Nt-,a1
Er:D:nccring ship
Center
(!kgln?er?iz for
Center length; 1
1.
The
Center
used
as inpat
characteristics
beam,
Li &.I -JI1
wight was then co~r~putcr!
total
estln
ted
rndev
r\efght and
(11 (5)
propulsion, (61
electrrcnl
command
systems,
outfitting
furnrshlngs,
(71 weapons
supporting
ordnance
systems.
used
the
Engineering
Centers costs
estimated per
ton
ship for
vei$tL
man-hours
each
w~lgl~t
developed costs production of East, these AddIfor the and Gulf and
essentially DD-963
labor
man-hour used
destroyer
a composite
1973. for
3Cn computing weight priced Overhead f;om East, growth. as a \fas Gulf,
costs,
a margln design
t tonally percentage at
_ costs of
were .,,.o~ps.
seven
l)bsLC costs
cstabllshcd
and /
72 percent Coast
West
12 percent
Lo reflect I 3
sole-source
Governn\ent-fLrn3 ,
sollclted
costs
were for
ohtalncd
frnm
lists
Sy G-c
costs -*erc , I
propulsLon Engincrllng
costs
obtnlndd
Costs
fK0m le
contrtil
s)sten,
nlssi
lrunchrng
sy5 terns 1
the
O-dnancr
Cormznd.
for
all lncludcd
the
above In the
items
except
for by the
future
characteristics
established,
Lead by the
s!\lp
otnel offlcc
costs and
fnclddc Lhc
subroqtlactor Center.
efforts They
plcj~cct
overview various
and program
efforts
OF ih2s.e tasls
provldcd
based
upon
fro5
prctlous
ties troyer
yrograps.
sltlpyard construLt~on
scrvlcc dclrvcry
coTts of
ship d on Co5tS
the basis
shrpbulldcrs
1 ould
programs
p-14 ~,cre
drvlded coiqlted
equally basic
among
all
follow-on costs
The catlmdtol
construction
95 percent
for
inbor
and
98 perccr,t
for
m2tcrial
costs.
CCJStS,
tl,r
cstimtor
o~~rmed
n margin f sh+d at
oi
8 pcrcrnt of
for
the
wcighl. labor COLLS assumed rult.lyeal sms estabkshed follow-on in tlx shoos, samr bull/ also fol at
growth.
and that
I Uvcrhcnd
90 percent nbote.
was dctcrn>fned
three
cihe cs trmator
-w*l1rl,
compatltively
an)arded, Proflc of
the
contracr 10 perccrl,
s in
mostly
ships
each.
procurcmenl. costs facto1 growth leea were s costs and ship. In half
C~~crnnent-furnlsl~cd
mazxcr GS the
dctermlned for
lead
mecflcnicol/electrical determlncd
change
csczlation However, and futllrc the norr~l that snip desqn. for the
In orders changes
as the
half of
jstrcs
for
alders durzng
ased
bccdu?e ctlon
most and
will
follow-on
II&S deleted
include on the
Gnter :hnt
suppdrt
I
of
csti=ated vultlqenr
three
sh:uvJrclr, frori /
~+oul+
previous
on coszs
destroyer
SOilx
tr~tilOllgh
to how
bxn
coqputcd valucs/fnctors, or
mg3mcslng
based
on extc.nslvc
shJp
11
ccnsidcrs
F01!0>*-0 Ll ship !
lxxausc fin%:
it ship
does
not
represent
solution follow-on
for
shxrJs
the
bdsL line.
A final
until
will
June
oi
l?avnl Frlgete
flaterjal \lhlch
approved shobeu
Procu,cpent costs
as of Jung
to bo $3,134 million,
esL,matcs,
lhe
dlscus,ed.
Iitivy
In
lrcnase th14
?> previously
repclrt
havy
do not
the
fxcal
year
1975
budget
preparations.
s I
cost -- reviews past, cost G110 hqs noted cstir~atcs that wele not independent being revletds condllctcd. of
x~dnon the
We f9urtd
delivery Analysis
less
than its
estimate.
A Resource a
the estimate
ship costing
He further
the Group computed the average follow-up shop cost _cost from this data and from the PF's characteristics. Accordmg to this offlczal, the only weight, lnformatlon
by the
pro3ect
office
propulsion
and costs
the electronxs
cost data was used because this area. The assumptrons plan,
(3.5 percent)
were used to compute escalatron. Group's report, costs the Rand Model wlthln I I 1 ord&s, plus
less outflttlng
1s accurate
or minus 10 percent. Using the traditlonal Resource Analysis the project instituted office's conflguratlon allowance of 8 percent for chage
the
an estimate hccordlng
more than
appear reasonable. PROGRESS PiCASURLXLXT Our revlcw was limited Internal to the techniques and contract used to coordinate efforts {and monitor i and to the man-
ship dcslgn
which
the proJect
1 of awarp I
We noted managing
meetings
the ship
(2)
teChTliqUES
used program
Navy staff
for
the
and
of
the reports.
lnFon,lcd
by
offzcc
beiwccn
n,cctin~: Navy
comn~unic~~t~o~s
p?JCCt
officials status.
obtaxn oIflcxa1 1.
t~mcly
apd
regardlng
progrdms
SLated
Internal
meetings the comporcnt all pI.oJcct and other are Xt between these
are
held
,.~eckly
fcr
kv
meetings
of Tht hrs
items
proJect
meetxgs
baa~c regal
manajcpenC, tasks
7.
plan~lry,,
and guidance
arc
Weehly
me&.trngs
with
the
Engineerin
Center.
4. I
coordinator offlclclc to
frequently
with as it affects
highest
Natty
1cvel~;o
l%e
to exchan2c
held
rlfth
the
shipbuilders
iIIfO~~~tl.OKI.
project
mnnnytirs.
The ;Jrin\ary Apart from staff biwrcklyi prinary or monthly shrp desagn
office
receives
weehly,
Center--the contractors. management control for drcwrngs, trelght, summnry, Informatll>n shop
The Englnecrlng infomation <combat space system and power reports ani
currently
requirements, requlrerrcnt
of
a sleekly uses
bczslc
desi&n zedlrectlon
manager
recornrend
or plovioe /
requlrcd
and
during Includes
zncur.rcd
month CW~;JLP~P tl
of the lcport and csltimntcd fund, required bj contract work, (21 stn~us of the work lncluorng rdtntlFrc;tlon ,problems rcvlcws potcntlal , cny unresolved CrLtrcal actron or IIlaJOr being cost fIndings token, (31
formal of
may have
) schedule,
I techn~~cnl
as of f!inoo
Segeerk!vr varisnccs
sLhcdulc
crplnlned
It
were
sP&l d DC noted,
not ahard,?d until
hot~evtr,
Apr11
contLncts
was
FLI~W-TF. efforts -WC were Acquisitlor out the life tnforncd Plan of wxll the by a project be the program. chengcs the the
pro~cct
manncement ~111
DC
document updated by
program outLrncs by
rcportlng
requlrcrcnt to control
tcchnlqucs of
be used
actlvitles
and t;lither
rowands
wIthIn
Pcqu~sltron oi ti 2 Fhree
by more
program
enplvcd
t ~~anager rrlll.
I changes be controlled In the acqulsltlon by t,+o groups cycle. 1,~ that 14111
function
stages
Patrol I
and derrdc
03 desxgd
soiutlons
recommended
ty
thci
design
teams
I during
A second
group,
Control or adclitlons to wf 11
whrch
remain
operation
maintain shop
latest thlnss of
wi 11, that
I
detcrmrrc
the budget
the group
2nd
contract
cow!lnacnt's
work
structures cost
cstin3t.e. Ship Thl, ad costs, ta us that the Cx,t Aajustmont RCVICI~ ail1 be cost4 cost; m-Lo 1 I acqui,sItion at a
3n another per-for-red
to du:e,
vay,
a quarterly office.
to
~evief* the
coq~letc,
--
during to
phase, 7000.17, in
the
cntitlcd April
1972.
Ferforxnce
constructron mana,+?mcnt
f ram propnsrd
I ions
i
to
construct30n, submit
--
the
m?nngcr
will
ctso repclts
require
in
thdt
monthly 7000.8,
pcrfornancc Coct include to provide rm+ct, problems, thr the cffccts and
cornpli,ance ,I1 ,
Report
brcuk-
structure
problems tclken
actions
inIorruatlon
resolve use to
exlstirrg and
managernext
In addition
submxtted progress
manager of
~111
recerve at
Navys
shlp~u~ld~.ng
provrde
and
procuctlon 0 Th-
b2 cmdbc
program tlmcly
and
resolve of
completlor, cf
thr?. project
shlpbulldlng and of
commands,
the
program the
xn Its
of
early the
not
seems to
as the Glen
develops,
begi,)
cvcluatcd.
12
perccl-c
- (note al
16
prrcen%c
dAccording to the ?Tavy, the inforxmt1on presented herein 1s based. on d&a developed as SCN budget submssxons. In the case of the lead ship, cost type contracts will be used making xt vi.rtu,aUy mpossible m the ftitum to spec~fiT;zUy identxii the coxtributlon of escalation as a sepraze elemzx 01 ~0s~. GAG L:lle-ies tha, b0 a5SiSt L ill cant, dllJ& program c~sis the Ilavy s,,ould at~emp t to Identify escalation as a separate cost elernerdi There my ne a need to develop procedures for domg tbls where cost type comracts are involved