Major Automated Information System (MAIS) Quarterly Report (MQR) determined that the ECSS program had incurred a "critical change" 1 because: 10 U.S.C. Ch 144A as amended by the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires Major Automated Information System (MAIS) programs to achieve a Full Deployment Decision (FDD) within five years after funds were first obligated for the program. Funds first obligated for Increment 1 of the ECSS program occurred on 31 Aug 05 when the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) approved Milestone A. As of 31 Aug 10, the MDA had not approved an Increment 1 FDD thereby meeting the definition of a critical change. This report looks at the root causes of the problems in the ECSS program and is not restricted to the critical change. While the program does not have an Approved Program Baseline (APB), and therefore has no official estimate of cost growth, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that its estimated cost grew from $3.0 billion in 2008 to $5.2 billion as of their report in October 2010. 2 Of similar importance, the initial plan called for FDD by 2010; it now appears that the final FDD (the original plan only had one) will not occur until at least 2016. Therefore, a six-year schedule slip has occurred. Methodology We visited with ECSS' sponsor at the Air Staff, the program manager (PM), his staff, and the contractor's staff to understand their positions. At our meeting with him, the PM gave us large briefing books that contain a great deal of information about the program that we found nowhere else. We also studied all publicly available data, including quarterly reports to the Congress and the Air Force budget justification books. Lastly, we read ERP literature and consulted with ERP experts, both inside and outside the government. This report is a synthesis of what we learned from those sources. Cost Growth and Schedule Slip The GAO asserts that the costs grew 75 percent from Milestone (MS) A to today (not yet MS B), while the program manager counters that 34 percent is the proper number because the MS A estimate and the latest estimate assume different levels of risk. We have nothing with which to compare either number, to be able to determine whether or not the number is large. The standard Nunn-McCurdy thresholds do not apply in this case because they only refer to an APB, which the MS A service cost position (SCP) is not.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.