I was recently asked by a client to provide a synopsis of what TruePlanning offers in response to the Ashton Carter Memorandum – Implementation of Will-Cost and Should-Cost Management. In the memo, the Undersecretary of Defense AT&L listed “Selected Ingredients of Should Cost Management”. It was interesting to note how much capability is provided by TruePlanning to effectively support efficient should cost management. In this month’s blog, I will share with my response to our client with you.
Selected Ingredients of Should Cost Mgmt (Ashton Carter Memorandum) | TruePlanning “Should Cost” Capability |
Scrutinize each contributing ingredient of program cost and justify it… | Can model size, technology and schedule parameters and understand the interaction of each on cost. |
Benchmark against similar DoD programs and commercial analogues… | Benchmarking using cost research knowledge databases based on both military and commercial programs. Can also include specific program history. |
Promote Supply Chain Management to encourage competition and incentivize cost performance at lower tiers. | Can model the entire supply chain to analyze and understand impact of competition and cost incentives. |
Identify opportunity to breakout GFE vs. prime contractor-produced items | Contains models for both GFE vs. CFE allowing including estimating new development vs. modification |
Identify items or services contracted through a second or third party vehicle. Eliminate unnecessary pass-through costs by considering other contracting options. | Ability to model different vendor scenarios using True Planning's System Level Cost Model. |
Identify an alternative technology/material that can potentially reduce development or life cycle costs for a program. Ensure the prime product contract includes the development of this technology/material at the right time. | Robust capability to quickly select alternative technologies/materials and quantify impact on lifecycle costs. |
Comments for TruePlanning’s Role in Should-Cost Management