Complexity in an Unexpected Place: Quantities in Selected Acquisition Reports
https://www.dau.edu
TABLE 1. GRAY EAGLE PROGRAM SAR AND BUDGET COMPARISON FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
FY 2018
Data Source
Q Cost (TY $)
Q Cost (TY $) Q Cost (TY $) Q Cost (TY $)
PB 2017
19 $246,490 K
17 $355,445 K
0
$60,117 K
0
$10,806 K
Dec 2015 SAR
2 $246,400 K
3 $322,200 K
0 $60,200 K
0
$15,200 K
Diference
17
$90 K
14 $33,245 K
0
-$83 K
0
-$4,394 K
Note. K = thousand; Q = quantity.
The cost diferences in FY 2015 and FY 2017 are minimal, but no obvious explanation is evident for the more signifcant diferences in FY 2016 and FY 2018 costs. In PB 2017, the unit of accounting for this program is one unmanned aircraft. However, the capability is also dependent on howmany ground assets for operating the systems are acquired and on the diferences between aircraft, as they are not all the same. In the SAR, the quantity is measured in companies, each of which contains several aircraft with diferent confgurations and some amount of ground equipment. The SAR contains a standard measure for what a company is, but also reports that not all companies ft the standard description. While the SAR does include a great deal of detail in various written sections, this makes it difcult to use the quantities in the data for quantitative analysis.
A Complex Example: The CH-47F Chinook Program The Army’s CH-47F Improved CargoHelicopter programdemonstrates challenges that can occur when counting quantities across years in both the PB and SAR. This program builds Chinook helicopters, which are easy to count, yet there are serious questions when looking at the data.
34
Defense ARJ, January 2020, Vol. 27No. 1 : 28-59
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog