The Cost Credibility Team (CCT) was organized to provide cost estimating and analysis support to the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program.  The motivation for establishing the CCT was provided by the Office of Management and Budget, who gave an action to NASA to provide consistent, credible OSP life cycle cost estimates that were validated by independent review.  The Engineering Cost Office (ECO) at MSFC was tasked by the OSP Program Manager to formulate a team to address the OMB action.

In response to the OSP program request, the ECO established a team consisting of cost analysis professionals from MSFC, JSC, and KSC under the leadership of Andy Prince.  The ECO also formulated the outlines of a Cost Credibility Plan (CCP) to address the issues raised in the OMB action.  The plan outlined by the ECO and expanded by the CCT consisted of three distinct, but interrelated tasks: Benchmarking; Process Discipline; and Innovation.

Benchmarking was an in-depth look at how well our models estimated the cost of historical spaceflight systems.  Government and contractor data was used in this analysis.  Several cost model shortcomings were identified that defined requirements for improvements to our models.

Process Discipline was focused on performing cost estimates for the program, interfacing with contractor cost organizations, and performing reconciliation activities with the life cycle cost estimates delivered by the OSP study contractors.  A central tenet of process discipline was the establishment and maintenance of supportable, defendable, credible, and documented cost estimating processes that were followed to ensure consistency in all program estimates.

Innovation was the improvement of existing and development of new costing capabilities.  Using the lessons learned from the Benchmarking activity, improvements to NAFCOM were identified and implemented.  In addition, a process based model for NAFCOM was developed to address the data gap that has resulted due to the time lag since the last development of a human rated launch system (Shuttle).

All CCT activities were closely coupled to ensure that the cost estimates were based on the best knowledge and tools available.  Because high quality cost estimates were important to meeting program milestones, a detailed schedule was developed and linked into the program schedule.  Finally, the program provided funding to enable the execution of the CCP.

Following the cancellation of the OSP program, the CCT was requested to document the lessons learned from our activity.  The following is a summary of our submission.

Delineating the activities of the CCT into Benchmarking, Process Discipline, and Innovation proved to be an effective way of organizing the work.  However, in the future, Data Collection should be addressed as a separate task.

Benchmarking of our cost models, both by the contractors and internally, was an excellent way to discover strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement.  However, the benefits were reduced by inconsistencies in how the models were used and a lack of data from the contractors.

The team approach to cost estimating was a good way to even out the biases and leverage the experience and knowledge that each person brings to the group.

Multi-center involvement was beneficial for capturing perspectives and knowledge from across the Agency, as well as providing additional resources to accomplish the task.

Working directly with the contractors enabled the Government to gain insights into their cost estimating approaches, and fostered a sense of common purpose.

Having a single point of contact into the program proved to be a good way to stay integrated.  However, as the work evolved the need to interface with other program managers and keep multiple program customers happy made coordination and integration a challenge.

Review of the CCT’s processes and products by an independent, outside expert provided valuable insight and helped keep the team focused on supportable, defendable, and credible cost estimates.