The problem of cost growth in major weapon system acquisition programs has plagued the Department of Defense for several decades. This report examines the Air Force experience with should-cost reviews — a special form of contract cost analysis intended to identify contractor inefficiencies and lower costs to the government — and options for enhancing the Air Force's capability to conduct such reviews.

The Air Force's Experience with Should-Cost Reviews and Options for Enhancing Its Capability to Conduct Them

Michael Boito, Kevin Brancato, John C. Graser, Cynthia R. Cook

ResearchPublished Sep 6, 2012

The problem of cost growth in major weapon system acquisition programs has plagued the Department of Defense for several decades. Recent Air Force and Department of Defense guidance has emphasized should-cost reviews — a special form of contract cost analysis intended to identify contractor inefficiencies and lower costs to the government — as a way to address this problem. This report examines the Air Force experience with should-cost reviews and discusses options for enhancing the Air Force's capability to conduct such reviews. The researchers interviewed participants in should-cost reviews of Air Force programs from the 1980s through 2011 and reviewed the literature on the use of should-cost reviews by the Department of Defense and commercial businesses. They found that few Air Force personnel have experience with should-cost reviews but also that there is little evidence that should-cost reviews save money compared with other forms of contract pricing and negotiation. The authors discuss options for establishing a dedicated Air Force capability to conduct should-cost reviews, but they recommend that the Air Force first confirm the effectiveness of such reviews.

Key Findings

The Effectiveness of Should-Cost Reviews Is Uncertain

  • There is a lack of evidence that should-cost reviews save money compared with other forms of contract pricing and negotiation, as well as a lack of evidence about key factors or circumstances that determine the success of should-cost reviews.
  • Although should-cost reviews can identify inefficiencies and potential ways to reduce costs, this does not automatically translate to savings. The Air Force must be willing and able to use the results of the analyses to negotiate lower prices on contracts.
  • Production processes have changed since the heyday of the Department of Defense's use of should-cost reviews in the 1970s, with most of the manufacturing of weapon systems now being outsourced rather than done by prime contractors. This suggests the need for a different focus and different techniques for should-cost reviews from those used in the past.

The Air Force's Capability to Conduct Should-Cost Reviews Is Limited

  • The Air Force assembles teams to conduct should-cost reviews on an ad hoc basis and does not have a dedicated capability to conduct such reviews, which hampers the retention of institutionalized knowledge, experience, and lessons learned.
  • Few Air Force personnel have experience with should-cost reviews, and little if any training in how to do them has been provided to participants in recent reviews.

Recommendations

  • The Air Force should first determine whether should-cost reviews result in savings compared with other forms of contract negotiation, under what circumstances, and using what methodologies.
  • The Air Force should assess lessons learned from recent should-cost reviews.
  • Using the results of the above two recommendations, the Air Force should develop training on how to conduct should-cost reviews.
  • Following an industry best practice, the Air Force should establish databases of cost, schedule, earned value, and technical information useful for cost-estimating and pricing activities.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
64 pages
List Price
$20.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2012
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 64
  • Paperback Price: $20.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 978-0-8330-6027-3
  • Document Number: TR-1184-AF

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Boito, Michael, Kevin Brancato, John C. Graser, and Cynthia R. Cook, The Air Force's Experience with Should-Cost Reviews and Options for Enhancing Its Capability to Conduct Them, RAND Corporation, TR-1184-AF, 2012. As of September 4, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1184.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Boito, Michael, Kevin Brancato, John C. Graser, and Cynthia R. Cook, The Air Force's Experience with Should-Cost Reviews and Options for Enhancing Its Capability to Conduct Them. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012. https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR1184.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force and conducted by RAND Project AIR FORCE.

This publication is part of the RAND technical report series. RAND technical reports, products of RAND from 2003 to 2011, presented research findings on a topic limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; discussions of the methodology employed in research; literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; and preliminary findings. All RAND technical reports were subject to rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.