兰德-Gap-Analysis-and-Alternatives-Analysis-of-the-Coast-Guard-Cost-Estimating-Workforce_51页_1mb

Summary of "Gap Analysis and Alternatives Analysis of the Coast Guard Cost Estimating Workforce"

Core Content

This report, published in 2018, presents a gap analysis and alternatives analysis of the Coast Guard's cost-estimating workforce. It evaluates the current capabilities of the Coast Guard to estimate the costs of major systems acquisitions and identifies the challenges in meeting the requirements set by Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Coast Guard itself. The report also proposes alternative staffing and organizational structures to enhance the Coast Guard's cost-estimating capabilities and address the identified gaps.

Main Findings

Gaps in the Current Cost-Estimating Process

1. Lack of Cross-Program Comparisons: Program managers (PMs) are responsible for their own program's life-cycle cost estimate (LCCE), leading to inconsistencies in cost analysis across the Coast Guard.
2. Inadequate Documentation: The Coast Guard does not document its cost analyses in accordance with GAO best practices, making it difficult to demonstrate cost-effectiveness.
3. Limited Access to Data and Methods: Coast Guard personnel lack access to the proprietary models and data used by external cost analysts, limiting their ability to fully understand the basis of cost estimates.
4. No EVM System: The Coast Guard does not have an earned-value management (EVM) system in place, which is recommended by GAO for tracking project performance against baselines.
5. No Data Archiving: The Coast Guard does not collect and archive cost data, which hinders the development of consistent and authoritative estimates for future systems.

Current Cost-Estimating Capabilities

• The Coast Guard relies on external organizations like the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) for cost estimates.
• It currently funds about 22 full-time equivalents (FTEs) for cost analysis, with CG-9283 having two FTEs, neither of whom is certified to the Level III DHS standards.
• There are approximately 20 FTEs from external sources involved in the ten major acquisition programs.

Key Alternatives for Addressing Gaps

Alternative A: Continue CG-9283 and CG-93 as Separate Cost Activities

• Pros: Maintains the current structure, allows for specialized focus on individual programs, minimizes review cycles.
• Cons: Less responsive to changes in requirements, limited flexibility, potential for in-house learning to be hindered, difficulty in interpreting DHS cost methodologies.

Alternative B: Consolidate into a Cost Competency Alignment Division

• Pros: Aligns with recommendations from external agencies and Coast Guard leadership, provides a single point of contact for leadership, improves standardization and career advancement opportunities.
• Cons: Adds steps to the review cycle, reduces PM control over methodologies, requires greater inter-agency cooperation, potential hiring freezes may limit billet expansion.

Alternative C: Use Contractor Support Within a Single Cost Division

• Pros: Balances between A and B, allows for a mix of government and contractor personnel, provides access to external data sources, enables centralized contracting authority.
• Cons: May increase costs due to contracting, impede in-house learning, and make it difficult to maintain consistent standards and annual reports due to unstable contractor support.

Key Tasks and Requirements for Cost Estimators

• Key Tasks: Prepare life-cycle cost estimates (LCCEs), support alternatives analysis, conduct what-if analyses, and ensure cost estimates meet DHS and Coast Guard standards.
• Education and Training: Cost estimators must have knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) aligned with DHS certification requirements, including training, education, and experience.
• Certification: Level III certification is recommended for LCCE development, but the Coast Guard currently lacks certified personnel.

Conclusion

The report emphasizes the need for a more robust and flexible cost-estimating workforce to meet the increasing demands of the Coast Guard's acquisition process. It recommends exploring organizational alternatives that can enhance the Coast Guard's ability to provide accurate, consistent, and well-documented cost estimates, in line with DHS and GAO standards.

Key Recommendations

• Develop a centralized cost-estimating function to improve consistency and standardization.
• Enhance documentation and data collection practices to support transparency and accountability.
• Consider integrating government employees, interservice agreements, and commercial contractors to meet staffing and capability needs.
• Align with the 12-step cost-estimating process outlined in the GAO guide.

Supporting Documents and References

• GAO Recommended Cost-Estimating Process (Figure 2.1)
• Coast Guard Major Systems Acquisition Life-Cycle Framework (Figure 2.2)
• DHS Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide
• Coast Guard Major Systems Acquisition Manual (Chapters 1, 2, and 5)

This report is a result of research conducted under contract HSCG23-17-J-ADW016 by the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center (HSOAC) for the U.S. Coast Guard. The findings do not necessarily reflect official DHS opinions.