Long-Lead Kits, Contract Type, and a Cost Overrun on a Milestone B Radar
You are the business financial manager for an Army program entering Milestone B for a new ground-based radar. The fiscal year budget contains $96 million of RDT&E and no procurement funds. The 30-month development contract is cost-plus-incentive-fee with a target cost of $80 million, a ceiling of $104 million, and a 70/30 share ratio. At 40 percent complete, the contractor reports CPI 0.86 and SPI 0.92, and proposes buying 18 long-lead transmitter kits at $410,000 each with RDT&E dollars, arguing the buy 'protects the schedule' for low-rate initial production two years from now. The program manager also wants to convert the remaining development work to firm-fixed-price to cap cost growth, since the requirement is now stable. RDT&E obligations are running 8 percent below the phasing plan. The milestone decision authority wants a financial recommendation in ten days.
1. Can the RDT&E appropriation legally fund the 18 long-lead kits? Analyze under the purpose statute and the bona fide needs rule.
Read the worked answer
No - recommend disapproval as proposed.
Purpose. The purpose statute (31 U.S.C. 1301(a)) requires that an appropriation be applied only to the objects for which it was made. RDT&E funds development, test, evaluation, and prototype effort. Kits that are physically part of production radar sets destined for LRIP are procurement articles, not development effort. The fact that they shorten a production lead time does not convert them into RDT&E.
Bona fide need. The government's need for the kits arises with LRIP, two years from now. Obligating today's RDT&E for a future-year need is a time violation (31 U.S.C. 1502) - the RDT&E appropriation is available for needs of the year in which it is current.
Recognized exceptions - and why they do not fit here. Advance procurement authority exists, but it must be requested in the budget as a separately identified procurement line (a long-lead funding line) with the departmental and congressional approvals that go with it; it cannot be conjured at execution on an RDT&E line. Prototyping authority permits building and testing prototypes, not buying hardware intended for fielded production units.
What to do instead. If the schedule risk is real, the program should submit a long-lead procurement requirement in the next budget cycle with a cost-benefit case, and manage the schedule with a funded risk-reduction effort (for example, selected component testing) that is genuinely RDT&E. Also verify that the 8 percent RDT&E under-execution is a phasing artifact, not a bank account waiting to be spent - obligating to improve execution metrics is the wrong reason to buy anything.
2. Evaluate the proposal to convert the remaining development work to firm-fixed-price. Include the cost position you would present, using the reported EVM data.
Read the worked answer
The cost position first. Earned value at 40 percent of the $80 million target is $32.0 million. Actual cost = EV / CPI = $32.0M / 0.86 = $37.2 million. Independent EAC = AC + (BAC − EV)/CPI = $37.2M + ($48.0M / 0.86) = $37.2M + $55.8M = $93.0 million. That is inside the $104 million ceiling but well above the $80 million target, and it consumes the government's share of the overrun under the 70/30 arrangement - the contractor's fee is already at risk.
The conversion question. Converting to FFP at 40 percent complete with a CPI of 0.86 means the contractor would price the remaining work at a premium to absorb the cost risk it has just demonstrated it cannot control. The government would pay for that risk up front and lose visibility and cost-share protection. FFP also assumes a stable, well-defined requirement; a development program still generating cost variance is not a strong candidate.
What the PM is actually trying to buy is protection against further overrun. Better instruments: reprice the incentive arrangement with a revised target and a realistic ceiling; add a cost-reduction incentive tied to should-cost; tighten the award-fee or incentive-fee criteria to schedule and cost performance; or restructure scope into a defined increment.
My recommendation. Do not convert now. Retain CPIF, renegotiate the target based on the validated $93 million EAC, and require a bottoms-up should-cost analysis and corrective action plan before the next option.
3. The MDA asks whether the CPI/SPI numbers indicate a problem the program can manage internally or one requiring higher-level action. Give your answer with the reasoning a reviewer would expect.
Read the worked answer
Interpretation. CPI 0.86 means the program is earning 86 cents of budgeted value per dollar spent - a 14 percent cost inefficiency, well outside the ±10 percent band that normally triggers a formal variance review. SPI 0.92 indicates work is running behind the planned schedule, roughly 8 percent of planned value not yet earned, and the schedule slip compounds the cost problem because the team carries fixed costs longer.
Is this internal? No, on two counts. First, the EAC of $93 million versus a $80 million target is a 16 percent growth that will consume management reserve and eventually threaten the $104 million ceiling if the trend continues. Second, a Milestone B program showing this variance at 40 percent complete is a leading indicator of a Nunn-McCurdy breach if it continues into the production estimate.
What the reviewer expects to see. Root-cause analysis at the control-account level (is the variance concentrated in software integration, supplier delays, or a single WBS element?); a corrected EAC with the basis of estimate; a recovery plan with dates and owners; and an assessment of whether the variance is within the PM's authority to reprogram internally or requires MDA notification and possible adjustment to the acquisition program baseline.
Financial action. Do not use the 8 percent RDT&E under-execution as the solution - establish whether it is phasing or true savings. If the program needs more RDT&E within the year, that is a proper reprogramming action with the correct approval level, not a quiet obligation increase. Notify the MDA now rather than at the next program review; the ten-day suspense means the memo should go out with the EAC and the variance analysis attached.