i
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE
SCHOOL
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
COST ESTIMATION AND ANALYSIS CAPSTONE PROJECT
HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD PRIME
CONTRACTOR DIRECT LABOR RATES TO DEVELOP BUDGET FORECASTING
By
Josh Frazier, Majonka Herlikofer,
Larry Mattivi, Phillip Ramon, and Anne Ryan Advisor: Joe Cardarelli, NAVAIR-4.2 Professor: CAPT Douglas E. Otte, USN (Ret.)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
ii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
iii
Historical Review of DOD Prime Contractor
Direct Labor Rates
To Develop Budget Forecasting
Team Members:
Josh Frazier
B.S., Mathematics
Certificate, Cost Estimating & Analysis, NPS
Majonka Herlikofer
B.S., Admin Studies, M.S., Technology
Certificate, Air Command and Staff College
Certificate, Cost Estimating & Analysis, NPS
Larry Mattivi
B.A., Labor Studies & Industrial Relations,
M.S., Business – Marketing Concentration
Certificate, Cost Estimating & Analysis, NPS
Phillip Ramon
B.A., Physics
A.S., Engineering
Certificate, Cost Estimating & Analysis, NPS
Anne Ryan
B.S., Marketing, M.B.A., Marketing Concentration
Certificate, Cost Estimating & Analysis, NPS
Advisor:
Joe Cardarelli
NAVAIR-4.2.1
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF COST ESTIMATION AND ANALYSIS
from the
NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
March 2013
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
iv
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................... 1
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
B. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 2
C. RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 4
II. STUDY INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
A. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 5
1. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................................... 5
2. SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 6
B. ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ......................................................................................... 7
1. GROUND RULES ........................................................................................................................ 7
2. ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................................... 7
3. STUDY LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................... 8
4. STUDY CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................. 8
III. ANALYTICAL APPROACH............................................................................................................... 9
A. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 9
1. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................. 9
2. DATA NORMALIZATION ......................................................................................................... 9
3. DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 9
a. ESTIMATING TOOLS ................................................................................................................ 9
b. ESTIMATING TECHNIQUES .................................................................................................. 10
c. LEVEL OF ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 10
d. DATA RULES ............................................................................................................................ 11
e. COST MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 11
f. FORMAT OF RESULTS............................................................................................................ 12
B. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................. 12
C. ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 12
1. OSD INDICES ............................................................................................................................ 12
2. DOD CONTRACTOR HISTORY.............................................................................................. 14
3. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (BLS) ............................................................................. 16
4. GLOBAL INSIGHT (GI)............................................................................................................ 19
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
vi
IV. ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................................... 22
A. SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 22
B. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 28
1. ENGINEERING ......................................................................................................................... 28
2. MANUFACTURING ................................................................................................................. 29
V. SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 30
A. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 30
B. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 30
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 30
C. FURTHER ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................... 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY: .................................................................................................................................. 36
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 37
APPENDIX A. STUDY ISSUES AND CONCERNS .......................................................................... 37
APPENDIX B. STUDY DATA ............................................................................................................. 39
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: OSD Indices by Appropriation ................................................................................... 13 Table 2: DOD Prime Contractor Data Collection ................................................................... 15 Table 3: Engineering Rates of Growth ..................................................................................... 28 Table 4: Manufacturing Rates of Growth ................................................................................ 29 Table 5: DLR Growth Factors using BLS, GI, Industry Averages, & Highest History ...... 33
Table 6: DLR Growth Factors using DOD Contractors and Industry Averages ................. 33 Table 7: DLR Growth Factors using DOD Contractor Labor Categories ............................ 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Example: Compounding Effect of Inflation............................................................... 1 Figure 2: DOD Contractors vs. All Indices (Engineering) ....................................................... 3
Figure 3: DOD Contractors vs. All Indices (Manufacturing) ................................................... 3 Figure 4: Study Results Compounded ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 5: Example: Compounding Effect of Inflation............................................................... 5 Figure 6: Cost Model Structure ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: DOD Contractor Locations ...................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Example of BLS Occupational Groups and Wages Rates ...................................... 17 Figure 9: BLS Occupational Groups and Labor Categories Used in Study ......................... 17
Figure 10: BLS Occupational Averages (Engineering) ........................................................... 18 Figure 11: BLS Sample Labor Categories (Engineering) ....................................................... 18
Figure 12: BLS Occupational Average (Manufacturing) ........................................................ 19 Figure 13: BLS Sample Labor Categories (Manufacturing) .................................................. 19
Figure 14: GI (NAVAIR) Indices for Aircraft Labor.............................................................. 21 Figure 15: Current 2012 Navy Inflation Indices % Change by Year .................................... 22 Figure 16: Current DOD Indices (Base Year 2005) ................................................................. 23
Figure 17: OSD Indices: Navy Forecasted by Official Release Date ...................................... 23 Figure 18: DOD Contractors vs. OSD Indices (Engineering) ................................................. 24
Figure 19: DOD Contractors by Industry Sector (Engineering) ............................................ 24 Figure 20: DOD Contractors vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing) ............................................ 25 Figure 21: DOD Contractors by Industry Sector (Manufacturing) ....................................... 25 Figure 22: BLS vs. OSD Indices (Engineering) ........................................................................ 26 Figure 23: BLS vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing) ................................................................... 26
Figure 24: GI (NAVAIR) vs. OSD Indices (Engineering) ....................................................... 27
Figure 25: GI (NAVAIR) vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing) .................................................. 27
Figure 26: DOD Contractor History vs. All Indices (Engineering)....................................... 28 Figure 27: DOD Contractor History vs. All Indices (Manufacturing) .................................. 29 Figure 28: Study Results Compounded .................................................................................... 31 Figure 29: Potential DLR Growth Factor Options .................................................................. 32 Figure 30: DOD Contractor Example: Design Engineering (2005-2020) .............................. 35
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
viii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• AFCAA - Air Force Cost Analysis Agency
• AHE - Average Hourly Earnings
• AMMO - Ammunition Procurement, Army
• APA - Aircraft Procurement, Army
• APN - Aircraft Procurement, Navy
• BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics
• CCDR - Contractor Cost Data Report
• CER - Cost Estimating Relationship
• CSDR - Cost and Software Data Report
• CY - Constant Year
• DCAA - Defense Contract Audit Agency
• DCMA - Defense Contract Management Agency
• DLR - Direct Labor Rates
• DOD - Department of Defense
• DRI - Data Resources, Inc.
• DW - Defense-Wide
• ECI - Employment Cost Indices
• FPRPs - Forward Pricing Rate Proposals
• FPRRs - Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations
• FPRAs - Forward Pricing Rate Agreements
• GI - Global Insight
• JCARD - Joint Cost Analysis Research & Database
• JIC - Joint Inflation Calculator
• IPR - In Progress Review
• KTR - Contractor
• MILCON - Military Construction
• MIPA - Missile Procurement, Army
• MS - Microsoft
• NCCA - Naval Center for Cost Analysis
• OMN - Operations and Maintenance, Navy
• OPA - Other Procurement, Army
• OPN - Other Procurement, Navy
• OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
• PMC - Procurement, Marine Corps
• PAO - Public Affairs Office
• POA&M - Plan of Action and Milestones
• PPI - Producer Price Index
• RDT&E,A - Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Army
• RDT&E,N - Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy
• SCN - Ship Procurement, Navy
• SLR - Simple Linear Regression
• TDD - Target Detection Device
• TY - Then Year
• UAVs - Unmanned Air Vehicles
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
ix
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
• USA - United States Army
• USAF - United States Air Force
• WEFA - Wharton Economics Forecasting Associates
• WPI - Wholesale Price Index
• WPN - Weapons Procurement, Navy
• WTV - Weapons and Track Vehicles Procurement, Army
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. INTRODUCTION
The NAVAIR Cost Department prepares budget estimates for all major weapon system programs
at NAVAIR. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Comptroller guidance requires the
use of the OSD Inflation Indices to generate all budgetary estimates. The NAVAIR-4.2 Cost
Department, through analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) contractor labor rates, has seen
differences in the rates of growth on Direct Labor Rates (DLR) than those predicted by the OSD
Inflation Indices. This study will analyze historical DOD contractor direct labor rates for
engineering and manufacturing labor and compare to OSD Indices.
When analyzing rates of growth, it is important to understand the compounding effect of
inflation and how it affects cost estimates. Seemingly small differences in the inflation rate can
make significant differences as costs are projected over time. Figure 1 below is an example that
shows the impact of changing the rate of growth in one percent increments over a twenty year
timeframe.
Figure 1: Example: Compounding Effect of Inflation
The implication is that small differences in the rate of growth between OSD indices used and the
contractor historical performance can have a great impact on our program budgets.
The goals of this study are:
- To determine if OSD Indices are sufficient to capture true economic conditions
experienced by defense contractors;
- To determine if there are any discernible patterns from Direct Labor Rates (DLR) to use
for budget forecasting;
- To quantify and recommend DLR growth factors that capture economic conditions
experienced by the Aerospace Industrial sector to use for budget forecasting;
- To improve the quality of labor estimates for Naval Aviation budgets.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
ate
of
Gro
wth
# of Years
Compounded Rate of Growth
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
2%
4%
6%
FYDP
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
2
The overall methodology for analysis included analyzing current alternatives for forecasting
inflation and comparing and contrasting these alternatives against the OSD indices. The current
methods used for inflation in NAVAIR cost models include:
- OSD Indices for Navy appropriations,
- NAVAIR defense contractor DLR history,
- Industry standards for inflation forecasting: Global Insight (GI) indices and Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) wage rates.
A separate excursion was conducted to determine the change in the Navy OSD Indices over time.
Historical Navy inflation indices published over the past twelve years (2000-2012) were
analyzed for trends. All data was converted to a 2005 base year index to normalize the indices
and labor rate data and to mask proprietary information. The dataset time horizon, based on the
limitation of available contractor history, includes indices from 2005 through 2020 and historical
contractor data for 2005 through 2011, with rate projections for 2012-out.
B. RESULTS
OSD Indices for All Services
Graphical results of the current 2012 Navy OSD indices (dated 2/10/12) show a consistent
pattern of rate of change by year except for the Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) index.
Further investigation is needed to determine the reason for the large variation in this index.
OSD Inflation Indices for each of the other services (Army, Air Force, and Defense-Wide) were
indexed to a 2005 base year and plotted to determine any service-unique patterns. While all
services use the same starting point for year-to-year rate of change, unique outlays are applied by
each service based on their service-unique experience to define Then Year (TY) dollars. Indices
for all services show similar patterns of growth. If OSD Indices are not sufficient for Navy
contractors, all other services have a similar problem because of the same patterns of growth in
the OSD indices. Therefore, results of this study could be applied to the other services’ cost
estimates.
OSD Indices: Navy Excursion The historical analysis of the Navy’s OSD indices forecasts over the past twelve years (2000-
2012) indicates that the Navy indices have been lowering over time and there is significant
volatility in current 2012 indices. There also appears to be a pattern in the data associated with
the timing of change in the Executive Branch Administration. This may indicate a political
influence on the OSD forecasts.
DOD Contractor History Historical DLR data was collected from six NAVAIR prime contractors across a total of fifteen
sites. Analysis of DOD contractor DLR history shows rates of growth for individual labor
categories are outpacing the OSD indices for both engineering and manufacturing.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
3
Bureau of Labor Statistics and Global Insight
Research indicates that BLS wage rates and GI indices are also outpacing OSD indices. GI
projections fall closer to the industry average for engineering and manufacturing, while BLS
wage rates are closer to OSD indices for both engineering and manufacturing. The comparisons
of all alternatives analyzed for engineering are shown in Figure 2 and for manufacturing in
Figure 3.
Figure 2: DOD Contractors vs. All Indices (Engineering)
Figure 3: DOD Contractors vs. All Indices (Manufacturing)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. ALL INDICESENGINEERING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry ENG Avg
Ktr B1(High)
Ktr D(Low)
BLS Eng Tech
BLS Mech/ElecTechBLS Aero Eng
BLS ENG AvgOSD (RDT&E)
GI Missiles
GI Helos
GI Aircraft
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. ALL INDICESMANUFACTURING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry MFG Avg
OSD (APN)
Ktr C(High)
Ktr B1(Low)
BLS MFG AvgBLS A/C Structure
BLS Machinists
GI Aircraft
GI HelosGI Missiles
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
4
For both engineering and manufacturing, OSD indices are lower than contractor DLR growth. It
was also found that OSD Indices are lower than BLS & GI indices. This analysis shows OSD
Indices alone are insufficient to capture true economic conditions experienced by defense
contractors. Also, DOD contractor DLR history does show a discernible pattern that could be
used for budget forecasting for engineering and manufacturing labor.
C. RECOMMENDATIONS
Analysis confirms that in some areas, the DOD contractor history and the contractor’s current
projections are outpacing the OSD inflation indices that are directed to be used for budget
forecasting.
Figure 4: Study Results Compounded
DLR growth factors have been quantified and are recommended to be used in lieu of OSD
indices to provide a more accurate representation of the Aerospace Industrial sector for
budgeting. Factors were calculated from DOD contractor DLRs (individual labor categories,
contractor averages, and industry averages), from BLS indices, and from GI indices. BLS factors
run closest to the 2% OSD indices, followed by Global Insight and industry averages ~3.8%, and
at the top were the highest DOD contractor engineering and manufacturing rates of growth
~5.7%. These DLR growth factors can be applied at different levels: total costs, total labor
estimates, and to direct labor estimates for different estimate purposes (negotiations vs.
budgeting vs. planning) to account for the true economic effects experienced by DOD
contractors on NAVAIR contracts.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
ate
of
Gro
wth
# of Years
Compounded Rate of Growth
OSD
BLS Eng Tech
BLS Mfg
GI Aircraft
GI Helo
GI Missiles
Industry Avg Eng
Industry Avg Mfg
KTR Eng
KTR Mfg2%
FYDP
3.8%
5.7%
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
5
II. STUDY INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
When analyzing rates of growth, it is important to understand the compounding effect of
inflation and how it affects cost estimates. Seemingly small differences in the inflation rate can
make significant differences as costs are projected out over time. Figure 5 below is an example
that shows the impact of changing the rate of growth in one percent increments over a twenty
year timeframe.
Figure 5: Example: Compounding Effect of Inflation
The implication is that small differences in the rate of growth between OSD indices used and the
contractor historical performance can have a great impact on our program budgets.
1. PURPOSE
Problem Statement:
The NAVAIR Cost Department prepares budget estimates for all major weapon system programs
at NAVAIR. OSD Comptroller guidance requires the use of OSD Inflation Indices are required
to generate all budgetary estimates and convert Constant Year (CY) dollar estimate to Then Year
(TY) dollar budget forecasts.
In the process of analyzing DOD contractor labor rates, the Cost Department has seen higher
rates of growth on direct labor rates. This study has answered the following questions:
• Are OSD Indices adequately capturing the true economic conditions experienced by the
defense industry for labor?
• Is the growth of labor rates across the Aerospace Industrial sector outpacing the OSD
Escalation Indices?
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
ate
of
Gro
wth
# of Years
Compounded Rate of Growth
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
2%
4%
6%
FYDP
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
6
• If OSD Escalation Indices alone are not adequate, what labor rate growth factor can be
used?
• What is industry using to determine economic conditions for labor?
Study Approach:
The study approach was to conduct a historical review of DOD contractor cost data and compare
to OSD Indices. The goal of the study was three-fold:
(1) To determine if OSD Indices are sufficient to capture true economic conditions
experienced by defense contractors,
(2) To determine if there is a discernible pattern from Direct Labor Rates that could
be used for budget forecasting, and
(3) To quantify and recommend DLR growth factors that capture economic
conditions experienced by the Aerospace Industrial sector to use for budget
forecasting and to improve the quality of labor estimates for Naval Aviation
budgets.
2. SCOPE
The Study Plan included four main alternatives for analysis:
(1) OSD Inflation Indices
(2) DOD Contractor History (NAVAIR prime contractors)
Industry Standards:
(3) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
(4) Global Insight (GI)
These four methods are currently used for accounting for inflation in cost models. The baseline
for this study was the OSD inflation indices used for Navy acquisition appropriations
(Development and Procurement). Data on NAVAIR defense contractors DLRs was collected for
engineering and manufacturing labor categories. To safeguard proprietary DLR data, contractor
names were masked using letter designations.
GI forecasts and the data from the BLS are used across the Aerospace Industrial sector by
contractors to forecast labor and inflation. These industry standards were investigated to
determine if they can provide support for a budgeting forecast position for NAVAIR budgets in
lieu of OSD indices in addition to the DOD contractor history.
The data was analyzed on multiple levels and compared to each alternative to determine patterns.
This analysis was used to determine the sufficiency of using the OSD Indices for budgeting. If
OSD indices are found insufficient, DLR growth factors could be calculated to provide another
methodology for applying inflation in budget estimates.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
7
B. ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
The following section defines the ground rules, assumptions, limitations and constraints for the
study.
1. GROUND RULES
Overall
1. All datasets were consistent (i.e., same timeframe).
2. All data was indexed to 2005 to enable comparisons between rates & indices.
3. Government labor rates were not included.
OSD Indices
4. 2012 OSD Indices for the Navy are the baseline for comparison.
5. Current & historical Navy indices were obtained from the NAVAIR-4.2 in-house
inflation tool.
6. All other services’ OSD Indices were derived from the Naval Center for Cost
Analysis (NCCA) Joint Inflation Calculator model.
DOD Contractor History
7. The changes in contractor historical DLRs year-over-year capture a rate of growth.
8. DLR data was obtained from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
and contractor rate proposals.
2. ASSUMPTIONS
Overall:
1. Historical trends can be used to project future trends.
2. A seven year historical dataset (2005-2011) is sufficient to develop conclusions.
3. Contractor engineering and manufacturing labor categories are cost drivers for growth.
OSD Indices 4. Navy inflation indices are representative of all other services indices.
DOD Contractor History 5. Historical rates reported by contractors are complete and accurate.
6. Regression techniques are used to fill in data gaps in contractor historical data.
7. Contractor historical DLRs capture contractor rates of growth.
BLS 8. Historical wage data reported are complete and accurate.
9. BLS Occupations (Engineering, Engineering Technicians, & Production) are
comparable to DOD contractor engineering & manufacturing labor categories.
GI 10. NAVAIR-tailored GI indices are representative of contractor growth.
11. Commodity indices are comparable to DOD contractor engineering & manufacturing
labor categories.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
8
3. STUDY LIMITATIONS
Overall: 1. Historical data was collected from years 2005-2011.
2. Projections for contractor history and indices were collected for years 2012-2020.
OSD Indices
3. Navy inflation indices for Development and Procurement appropriations were used.
DOD Contractor History 4. DLR data for six contractors covering fifteen sites were collected and reviewed.
5. Only engineering and manufacturing labor categories were reviewed.
BLS 6. Engineering, Engineering Technicians, and Production occupations were used.
7. Average wage rates from The National Occupational and Wage Estimate Survey were
used for comparison.
GI 8. NAVAIR-tailored GI indices used.
9. Three commodities were reviewed including Aircraft, Helicopter, and Missile indices.
4. STUDY CONSTRAINTS
Overall:
1. All data was indexed to one year (2005) to mask proprietary cost data.
2. Direct labor rates (without fringe benefits) were analyzed.
3. Investigate two Industry Standards for inflation: BLS and GI.
OSD Indices
4. Indices for Navy, Air Force, Army, and Defense-Wide were reviewed for trends.
5. Navy historical inflation forecasts were analyzed.
DOD Contractor History
6. The focus was on NAVAIR prime contractors.
7. Data analysis and recommendations focused on contractors’ historical trends.
8. The analysis of contractor DLR projections is recommended for a follow-on study.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
9. The focus was only on engineering and manufacturing wage rates for comparison.
Global Insight (GI)
10. Only NAVAIR-tailored GI indices were analyzed.
11. Analysis was limited to fixed wing, helicopter, and missile commodity indices.
12. Commodities are broken out into airframe, engines, and electronics.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
9
III. ANALYTICAL APPROACH
A. METHODOLOGY
The overall methodology for analysis was to look at the current alternatives for forecasting
escalation and to compare and contrast these alternatives to the OSD indices (current budget
direction) to determine the best forecasting methodology. The next step was to determine the
methodology for data collection, data normalization, and data analysis.
1. DATA COLLECTION
Data collection included defining data to be collected and identifying potential data sources.
Data definition determined the appropriate time horizon of cost data to be collected, specific
labor categories sought, and defining any supporting data needed. Data collection was an
iterative process that took place throughout the study as adjustments and refinements were made
to the study plan.
For each of the alternatives, the study team collected historical data and current projections for
the same timeframe. This timeframe was determined to be from 2005 through 2020 based on the
availability of DOD Contractor data. The data collected included: indices for OSD and Global
Insight, and direct labor wage rates for DOD Contractors and BLS survey data.
2. DATA NORMALIZATION
To normalize the data so contractor proprietary rate information is masked, a data masking
algorithm was first defined for all of the collected data. Next, all contractor data was indexed to
a 2005 base year.
Indexing the collected data served two purposes: (1) it masked the contractor proprietary wage
rates, and (2) it allowed a direct comparison between the wage rates against the indices. The
year 2005 was chosen as the base year because it is a common year for which DOD contractor
history was available.
3. DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis included determining what estimating tools and techniques would be used defining
the level of detail to be analyzed, and establishing rules for addressing any problems with the
data (including data gaps or outliers) . Cost model structure and formatting of the results were
also defined.
a. ESTIMATING TOOLS
Microsoft Excel was chosen to host the cost model and perform analysis on the data. Excel was
chosen for several reasons:
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
10
(1) Excel was accessible to all team members (and would be compatible for future analysis
as it is readily-available software).
(2) It supports data sorting, graphical analysis, and statistical analysis.
Microsoft Project was selected to develop the Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) to plan
the study in detail. Microsoft PowerPoint was selected to develop briefing slides for the study
presentations.
b. ESTIMATING TECHNIQUES
After the data was normalized, it was plotted to determine if any patterns exist. Simple Linear
Regression (SLR) analysis was applied to the historical data to develop trend line. This trend
line was projected out to the year 2020. Forecasts from 2012 to 2020 were plotted against the
historical trend line for comparison. Where there were data gaps, the existing data collected was
regressed to develop a trend line for the historical actuals. This trend line was used to fill in data
gaps.
Estimating techniques for data collection and normalization used included:
1. Ensuring data source consistency (using historical actuals only),
2. Ensuring the same timeframe (2005-2011),
3. Ensuring a consistent baseline for comparison (OSD indices),
4. Normalizing to a 2005 index for indices and rates,
5. Applying Simple Linear Regression (SLR) analysis.
c. LEVEL OF ANALYSIS
Once the data was graphed and trend lines developed, the trend lines were compared to
determine patterns in the data. The data was analyzed on multiple levels to identify patterns.
Levels of data analysis included the following:
For OSD indices, the data was grouped by service (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-
Wide) and by appropriation (Aircraft Procurement, RDT&E, Other Procurement, etc.).
For DOD contractor data, the data was analyzed for each contractor by individual labor
category, and then by grouping engineering and manufacturing labor categories by
contractor site to develop a composite trend lines. Composite trend lines for engineering
and manufacturing were plotted for each contractor to determine the range of industry
data. Then an average of all the contractor trend lines was calculated to determine an
industry average for engineering and manufacturing labor. Data for each labor type was
then graphed and averaged for different commodity types (i.e., helicopter vs. fixed wing
manufacturers).
For GI indices, the indices were grouped into three commodity types: Fixed Wing,
Helicopter, and Missiles with each index broken out into three separate labor categories.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
11
For BLS data, only direct labor wages were analyzed. No fringe benefits were included.
The datasets were grouped into three comparative occupational codes: engineering,
engineering technician, and manufacturing. Labor categories that were similar to
aerospace design and manufacturing were extracted from the overall occupation. These
extracted categories were then averaged for an occupational average. For each
occupation code, three specific representative labor categories were identified and
analyzed.
d. DATA RULES
See Measures of Effectiveness section for data rules used in this study.
e. COST MODEL
The following is a pictorial summary of the overall model structure:
Figure 6: Cost Model Structure
The following is the structure of the Overall Cost Model by individual spreadsheet:
Overall Cost Model:
• OSD 2012 Indices: indices & graphs for each service and appropriation for 2012
• OSD 2001-2011 Navy Indices: indices & graphs for historical Navy indices
• KTR A: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor A
• KTR B1: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor B1
• KTR B2: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor B2
COST MODEL
Baseline:
Navy Indices
Historical
look at Navy
Forecasts
OSDIndices
(All
Services)
KTR F2
KTR F1
KTR E
KTR D
KTR C
KTR B3
KTR B2
KTR B1
KTR A
Contractor
DLR
Production
Eng Tech
Engineering
BLS Occupations
Missiles
Helicopter
Aircraft
GI Commodities
Model
Summary
- Occupation averages
- Avg by labor category- Commodity averages
- Avg by labor grouping
- Mfg & Eng labor category
- Contractor Mfg & Eng averages
- Industry avgs for Mfg & Eng
- Dev & prod appropriations
- Indices for Navy appropriations
- History of Navy indices
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
12
• KTR B3: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor B3
• KTR C: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor C
• KTR D: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor D
• KTR E: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor E
• KTR F1: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor F1
• KTR F2: DLR data, indexed, averaged, and trend lines graphed for Contractor F2
• KTR Summary: Summary of indexed and averaged data graphed for all contractors
• GI AC: Data and graphs for Global Insight Aircraft Labor
• GI Helo: Data and graphs for Global Insight Helicopter Labor
• GI Missiles: Data and graphs for Global Insight Missiles Labor
• BLS All Years: Data and graphs for BLS Eng., Eng. Tech., & Mfg. labor wage rates
• BLS Summary: Summary of BLS Data and graphs
• BLS Charts: Data and graphs for BLS individual labor categories
• Graph Data: Summary of all data used for graphing (slopes, y-intercepts, indices)
• ENG: Graphs for all engineering data
• MFG: Graphs for all manufacturing data
• Labor Cats: Summary of labor category definitions
f. FORMAT OF RESULTS
The initial results were in the form of the index values based on the 2005 base year. Results
were also developed by graphing the indexed data and developing trend lines from them. Slopes
defining the rates of growth were defined for each category.
B. MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
The main forecasting technique used was simple linear regression to determine the best fit for the
datasets. The measure of effectiveness used for the regression trend lines was the R2 parameter.
R2 measures the amount of variation that exists between the Cost Estimating Relationship (CER)
and the historical data. R2 was used to determine that strength of the trend line for the historical
data. Where R2 values were below .70, we analyzed the data to determine if there were any
outliers in the datasets. If an outlier was present, it was deleted to improve the R2 value. Where
there were poor R2 values (< .70) or negative slopes in the trend lines, the slope was adjusted to
1.0 and then averaged into the other labor categories.
C. ALTERNATIVES
1. OSD INDICES
Background:
The OSD Indices are the budgeting standard used for inflation by DOD. The study plan for this
alternative was to research how these indices are calculated and to define trends in these
forecasts over time.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
13
The Department of Defense (DOD) inflation policies are set by the Council of Economic
Advisors (CEA), the U.S. Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). They
also issue inflation rates for all federal agencies and departments which are used in budgeting
and planning. The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) (OUSD(C)) uses these
inflation rates in order to develop inflation guidance, including determining the amount of price
escalation for procurement items, in the branches of the military.
The OUSD (C) determines the price index or rate of growth for each appropriation by taking the
OMB price indices for five categories of spending: Military Pay, Civilian Pay, Fuels, Medical
Expenditures, and Other Purchases. Each category is then weighted by the percentage of the
appropriations spending and then summed.
The OSD Procurement Index is a special case of price indices. The price index for procurement
is derived solely from the OMB category, Other Purchases. The OMB category Other Purchases
is based on projections of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) rate of growth for the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). Using this methodology, the OUSD (C) inflation guidance assumes
that the prices for DOD procurement items have the same rate of growth as the economy as a
whole. OSD indices are driven by the Executive Branch as a challenge to cost growth. They are
a political position on the economy.
Data Collection:
Data for the OSD indices was collected from multiple sources. For the Navy indices, the
information was obtained from an internal NAVAIR Cost Department database. For Army and
Defense-Wide indices, the Joint Inflation Calculator (JIC) database hosted by the Naval Center
for Cost Analysis (NCCA) website was used to collect indices. Air Force indices were obtained
from an inflation calculator database obtained from the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency
(AFCAA).
As the focus of the study was on acquisition budget forecasting, the data collection for inflation
indices was limited to Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) and Procurement
appropriation indices. Table 1 shows the list of indices collected for each service and
appropriation for years 2005 through 2020.
Table 1: OSD Indices by Appropriation
Navy Indices Excursion
The historical forecasted Navy indices published from 2000 through the current 2012 indices
were collected and analyzed to identify any trends in the inflation forecasting over the twelve
year timeframe.
Navy RDT&E(Purchases), RDT&E(Composite), APN, OPN, WPN, PMC
Army RDT&E,A, APA, OPA, WTCV, MIPA, AMMO
Air Force RDT&E (3600), AP(Other) (3010), AP(Special) (3010), MP(Other)
(3020), MP(Special) (3020), OP(Other) (3080), OP(Special) (3080)
Defense-Wide RDT&E,DW, DW (Procurement), DW (Other Procurement)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
14
Methodology:
After the Navy, Air Force, Army and Defense-Wide indices and historical forecasts for Navy
indices were collected, a regression was applied to develop trends for each service’s indices.
Trend lines were projected out to 2020 and graphed for comparison.
2. DOD CONTRACTOR HISTORY
Background:
Growth experienced in the DLR directly influences the wrap rate growth that is used to convert
labor hour forecasts into labor dollars.
The study plan included collecting direct labor rates from several DOD prime contractors for
multiple years. The team collected data from multiple locations for each of the contractors. Then
the team analyzed data from the contractors’ current FPRPs that contains both historical data and
forecast projections. Engineering and manufacturing labor categories were the focus of this
alternative. The study plan also included collecting and defining inflation methodologies used
by DOD contractors to determine which industry standards are being used across the Aerospace
Industry.
Data Collection:
Data was collected and analyzed from six DOD prime contractors covering fifteen sites that span
the US geographically. The following is a map of the DOD contractor locations by state used in
this study:
Figure 7: DOD Contractor Locations
WA
UT
GA
AZ
CA
VA
NY
MO
TX
MD
FL
AL
OK
IL
PA
SD
ND MT
ID
ME
OH
KY
WI
NE
WY
IN
IA
MI
TN NC
AR
LA
MN
NM
CO
NV
OR
MS
MA
RI
NJ
WV
KS
SC
VT
NH
DC
DE
AK
HI
CT
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
15
Datasets from DOD contractors were collected from multiple sources. Direct labor rates were
collected for multiple years with the goal of obtaining direct labor rates from multiple locations.
Historical data was obtained from current FPRPs that also included projections out for two to
five years.
Data was collected for multiple engineering and manufacturing categories at each site. Labor
category definitions were also collected to determine differences between contractors for the
same type of effort. Each contractor has unique labor definitions. The definitions were used to
determine groupings into the engineering and manufacturing categories. Rates data requests
were sent to several DCMA points of contact. Contractor data collected included: FPRPs,
Estimating Manuals, Disclosure Statements and DCMA published reports and analysis. Table 2
summarizes the data collection effort for the six prime contractors.
* Historical actuals for 2007-2011 used to fill in data gaps for 2005-2006 (Contractor C)
Table 2: DOD Prime Contractor Data Collection
Methodology:
The methodology was to analyze multiple engineering and manufacturing categories after using
labor category definitions to determine grouping into engineering or manufacturing.
The data was analyzed on multiple levels:
• Individual contractor labor categories.
• Composite contractor trends (using average of multiple categories).
• Averaged trend lines across industry.
• By Sector: Helicopter vs. fixed wing contractors/sites.
Contractor Location Actuals ForecastData
Requested
Data in
spreadsheet
Actuals
graphed
Forecast
Graphed
Excludes
Fringe
Have labor
category
defini tions
Contractor A Sites 1, 2 & 3 2001-2011 2012-2018 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor B1 Site 1 2005-2011 2012-2020 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor B2 Site 2 1999-2011 2012-2020 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor B3 Site 3 2004-2011 2012-2016 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor C Site 1 2007-2011 2012-2017 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor C Site 2 2007-2011 2012-2017 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor C Site 3 2007-2011 2012-2017 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor D Site 1 2004-2011 2012-2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor D Site 2 2004-2011 2012-2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor E Site 1 2004-2011 2012-2016 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor F1 Site 1 2004-2011 2012-2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor F1 Site 2 2004-2011 2012-2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Contractor F2 Site 1 2005-2011 2012-2015 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
16
3. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (BLS)
Background:
BLS is one of the two industry standard investigated in this study. BLS publishes information on
the wages, earnings, and worker’s benefits. The information is categorized by one of the
following ways:
Geographic area (national, regional, state, metropolitan area, or county data),
Occupation (such as teacher or carpenter),
Industry (such as manufacturing or retail trade),
Additional categories such as age, sex, or union membership may also be used,
Wage data available by occupation for nation, region, by state, and many cities.
Wage data by area and occupation are collected in the following surveys:
The National Occupational and Wage Estimates Survey.
The Employment Cost Trends Index.
Occupational Employment Statistics Survey.
The Current Population Survey.
The study plan included investigating BLS information to determine if comparisons can be made
to wage rates from DOD contractor information. Research showed that the data from the
National Occupational & Wage Estimate Survey was the most useful comparison. It was
determined that fringe benefits were not included in the average rates used.
Data Collection:
Average wage data from the National Occupational & Wage Estimate Survey was used in this
study for comparison. Estimates in the survey are calculated with data collected from employers
in all industry sectors. The consolidated mean wage rates from the following three occupations
were used:
• Engineering (17-0000)
• Engineering Technician (17-0000)
• Production (51-0000)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
17
Figure 8: Example of BLS Occupational Groups and Wages Rates
Figure 9: BLS Occupational Groups and Labor Categories Used in Study
Methodology:
Labor categories for each occupation were reviewed to determine a set of categories that were
similar to the defense Aerospace Industry. These selected categories were indexed and the
averages were calculated for each occupation. In addition, individual “representative” wage
Major Occupational Groups Mean and Median
Wage RatesEngineering Wage Rates
Major Occupational Groups
Engineering Labor
Engineering Technician Labor
Production / Manufacturing LaborNational Occupational and Wage Estimates
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
18
rates were chosen from each occupation to determine how specific wage rates compared to the
occupational averages. The results were graphed for years 2005 to 2011.
Shown in Figure 10 is the average for the two engineering occupations: BLS Engineering and
BLS Engineering Technicians. Figure 11 shows the trend lines and rates of growth for the
representative labor categories for the two engineering occupations.
Figure 10: BLS Occupational Averages (Engineering)
Figure 11: BLS Sample Labor Categories (Engineering)
Shown in Figure 12 is the average for the production (equivalent to manufacturing) occupation,
followed by the trend lines and rates of growth for two of the representative labor categories
Figure 13 for the production occupation.
y = 0.0312x + 0.9799R² = 0.9758
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
BLS - AVG ENGINEERS (2005-2011)
y = 0.023x + 0.9773R² = 0.9956
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
1.16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5Year
BLS - AVG ENG TECHNICIANS (2005-2011)
Occupational Averages
y = 0.0327x + 0.9735R² = 0.9779
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers Index (2005-2011)
Sample Labor Categories
y = 0.0255x + 0.9688R² = 0.9713
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
005
Year
17-3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians Index (2005-2011)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
19
Figure 12: BLS Occupational Average (Manufacturing)
Figure 13: BLS Sample Labor Categories (Manufacturing)
4. GLOBAL INSIGHT (GI) Background:
Global Insight is the other industry standard investigated in this study. GI indices are one of the
industry standards for inflation used by DOD contractors for their inflation methodologies. IHS
Global Insight, Inc. is a consultant that “provides 10-year forecasts for up to 1,300 commodity
prices and wages, as well as access to thousands of historic price and wage series from around
the globe.” (ihs.com, 2012) Formerly known as Data Resources, Inc. (DRI) and Wharton
Economics Forecasting Associates (WEFA), GI is one of the world’s largest repositories of
economic, financial, and industry data.
GI provides Price, Wage, and Employment Cost indices by commodity within sectors of the
economy. For Price, GI reports the Producer Price Index (PPI), the Wholesale Price Index
(WPI), and market prices. “The PPI measures the average change over time in the selling prices
received by domestic producers for their output.” (BLS.gov) The Wholesale Price Index is an
index reported monthly “that measures and tracks the changes in price of goods in the stages
before the retail level…and show the average price changes of goods sold in bulk…they are a
Occupational Average
y = 0.0237x + 0.9694R² = 0.9909
0.98
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
BLS - AVG PRODUCTION (2005-2011)
Sample Labor Categories
y = 0.0262x + 0.9629R² = 0.9789
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
51-4041 MachinistsIndex (2005-2011)
y = 0.0172x + 0.9802R² = 0.7411
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
51-2011 Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging, and Systems Assemblers
Index (2005-2011)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
20
group of the indicators that follow growth in the economy. Although some countries still use the
WPIs as a measure of inflation, many countries, including the United States, use the producer
price index (PPI) instead. (Investopedia.com) For wages, GI reports the Average Hourly
Earnings (AHE). They also report and track the Employment Cost Index (ECI) which is “a
quarterly economic series detailing the changes in the costs of labor for businesses in the United
States economy. The ECI is prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS.gov), in the U.S.
Department of Labor.” (Wikipedia.com)
GI also publishes two quarterly publications: (1) Cost Planner and Supply Manager that included
forecast tables and written analysis, and (2) Cost Analyzer, which is a MS Excel Based software
tool with its own database that includes historical & forecasted indices for more than 1,200
commodity prices & wages. The software tool allows users to create customized composite
indices. GI Indices are weighted versions of the BLS codes.
Data Collection:
GI data was collected for several indices from different labor categories for multiple years. The
GI indices used across the NAVAIR Cost Department are “Flyaway” indices, customized into
composite indices that GI created specifically for NAVAIR. They were tailored by GI for
NAVAIR using weightings based on NAVAIR Contractor Cost Data Reports (CCDRs) and
budget data provided by NAVAIR.
The data is grouped into three commodity indices: Aircraft, Helicopter, and Missile data. Each
commodity index is further broken out into multiple labor areas including: Airframe, Engines,
and Electronics labor for both Aircraft and Helicopter commodities, and Propulsion, Target
Detection Device (TDD), and Warhead labor for the Missile commodity index.
Methodology:
GI (NAVAIR) indices were indexed to 2005. SLR was applied to the data to develop trend lines.
The data was analyzed on multiple levels: Composite trends were created from averages of each
commodity. Using these composite trends, contractors for the Fixed Wing sector were compared
to Aircraft indices and Rotary Wing sector contractors were compared to the Helicopter indices.
Figure 14 shows an example of the GI indices trends.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
21
Figure 14: GI (NAVAIR) Indices for Aircraft Labor
All GI indices used in this study follow similar patterns across the three commodities.
y = 0.011x + 0.9611R² = 0.4295
y = 0.0603x + 0.9278R² = 0.9787
y = 0.0462x + 0.9531R² = 0.9853
y = 0.0392x + 0.9473R² = 0.9893
0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
1.30
1.35
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Gro
wth
from
200
5
Year
GI: AIRCRAFT LABOR (Index 2005-2011)
Airframe
Engine
Electronics
Average Aircraft
Linear (Airframe)
Linear (Engine)
Linear (Electronics)
Linear (Average Aircraft)
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
22
IV. ANALYSIS
A. SUMMARY
OSD INDICES
Results analyzing the current Navy weighted indices (dated 2/10/12) show a consistent rate of
change by year except for the Weapons Procurement, Navy (WPN) index (See Figure 15 below).
Figure 15: Current 2012 Navy Inflation Indices % Change by Year
OSD Indices for All Services
OSD Inflation Indices for each of the other services were plotted to see if there were any service-
unique patterns. All services use the same starting point for year-to-year rate of change (the raw
index). Unique outlays are applied by each service based on their service-unique experience to
define the Then Year (TY) dollar values (weighted index). Figure 16 shows the indices for each
service indexed to a 2005 base year.
Trend lines for all services inflation indices have R2 values in the 99% range. All services trend
line slopes (or rates of growth) were from 2.0% - 2.2%.
OSD Indices Conclusions:
All indices show similar patterns for each service. If the OSD Indices were shown to be
inadequate for the Navy, then all other services have a similar problem
-1.00%
-0.50%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
% Change
Year
NAVY Weighted Index % Change By Year
APN
OPN
WPN
RDTENPur
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
23
Figure 16: Current DOD Indices (Base Year 2005)
Navy Excursion: A separate excursion was conducted by gathering historical Navy inflation indices to determine
how the forecasts have been changing over time. Navy indices released from 2005 through 2012
were collected and plotted by release date as shown in Figure 17. All Navy inflation indices
(forecasts) have been lowering since 2009, with significant volatility being seen in the current
2012 indices.
Figure 17: OSD Indices: Navy Forecasted by Official Release Date
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
Defense Wide Indices (BY2005)
DW RDT&E
DW Proc
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4G
row
th f
rom
20
05
Year
Navy Indices (BY2005)
APN
OPN
WPN
RDT&E Pur
RDT&E Comp
Linear (RDT&E Comp)1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
Air Force Indices (BY2005)
RDT&E AF
APAF (Special)
APAF (Other)
MPAF (Special)
MPAF (Other)
OPAF (Special)
OPAF (Other)
Linear (OPAF (Other))
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
Army Indices (BY2005)
APA
OPA
MIPA
RDTEA
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
APN Index Forecast Over Time
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
20120.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
OPN Index Forecast Over Time
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
WPN Index Forecast Over Time
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012 0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
RDT&E (Pur) Index Forecast Over Time
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
24
DOD CONTRACTOR HISTORY For engineering, the NAVAIR contractors’ historical rate of growth is higher than the OSD
Indices as shown in Figure18 below. For engineering, the average rate of growth for the DOD
contractors was 3.8%, with the Rotary Wing sector averaging a 3.1% rate of growth and the
Fixed Wing sector averaging 4.4%.
Figure 18: DOD Contractors vs. OSD Indices (Engineering)
Figure 19: DOD Contractors by Industry Sector (Engineering)
For manufacturing, the NAVAIR contractors’ history rate of growth is higher than the OSD
Indices as shown in Figure 20 below. The average manufacturing rate of growth for the DOD
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. OSD INDICESENGINEERING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry ENG Avg
Ktr B1(High)
Ktr D(Low)
OSD (RDT&E)
Manufacturing by Industry Sector:
Rotary Wing (RW) vs. Fixed Wing (FW)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS (By Sector)ENGINEERING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry ENG Avg
Ktr B1(High)
Ktr D(Low)
RW ENG Avg
FW ENG Avg
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
25
contractors was 5.2% with the Rotary Wing sector averaging 3.7% and the Fixed Wing sector
averaging 3.4% as shown in Figure 21.
Figure 20: DOD Contractors vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing)
Figure 21: DOD Contractors by Industry Sector (Manufacturing)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. OSD INDICESMANUFACTURING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry MFG Avg
OSD (APN)
Ktr CKtr F
Ktr AKtr B3Ktr B2Ktr DKtr E
Ktr B1
Manufacturing by Industry Sector:
Rotary Wing (RW) vs. Fixed Wing (FW)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS (By Sector)MANUFACTURING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry MFG Avg
OSD (APN)
Ktr C(High)
Ktr B1(Low)
FW MFG Avg
RW MFG Avg
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
26
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS (BLS) For engineering, the BLS Engineering average (3.2%) and the BLS Aerospace Engineer labor
category (3.3%) indices rates of growth are higher than the OSD Indices as shown in Figure 22
below. The BLS Engineering Technician Average (2.3%) and the BLS Mechanical/Electrical
Technician labor category (2.6%) rates of growth are very close to the OSD indices.
Figure 22: BLS vs. OSD Indices (Engineering)
For manufacturing, BLS Manufacturing average indices (2.4%) and the BLS Machinist labor
category (2.6%) indices rates of growth are comparable to OSD Indices as shown in Figure 23
below. The BLS Aircraft Structures labor category (1.8%) rate of growth is lower than the OSD
indices.
Figure 23: BLS vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
BLS vs. OSD INDICESENGINEERING (Actuals 2005-2011)
OSD (RDT&E)BLS Eng Tech Avg
BLS Mech/Elec Tech
BLS Aero Eng
BLS ENG Avg
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
BLS vs. OSD INDICESMANUFACTURING (Actuals 2005-2011)
OSD (APN)
BLS MFG Avg
BLS A/C Structure
BLS Machinists
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
27
GLOBAL INSIGHT (GI) For engineering, the rates of growth for GI are higher than the OSD Indices as shown in Figure
24. The average engineering rate of growth for the GI is 3.6% for GI Aircraft, 3.6% for GI
Helicopters, and 3.5% for GI Missiles.
Figure 24: GI (NAVAIR) vs. OSD Indices (Engineering)
For manufacturing, the same GI indices rates of growth are used for comparison to the OSD
Indices as shown in Figure 25. The average manufacturing rate of growth for the GI is 3.6% for
GI Aircraft, 3.6% for GI Helicopters, and 3.5% for GI Missiles. The only difference is the OSD
appropriation used for comparison: RDT&E for engineering and APN for manufacturing.
Figure 25: GI (NAVAIR) vs. OSD Indices (Manufacturing)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
GI vs. OSD INDICESENGINEERING (Indices 2005-2020)
OSD (RDT&E)
GI Missiles
GI Helos
GI Aircraft
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
GI vs. OSD INDICESMANUFACTURING (Indices 2005-2011)
OSD (APN)
GI Aircraft
GI HelosGI Missiles
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
28
B. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis was derived from the range in the rates of growth for the different datasets.
These different rates of growth led to several recommendations to address different levels of
estimating.
1. ENGINEERING
Figure 26 below shows all four alternatives for engineering on the same graph. Overall, the
entire range of the DOD contractor history for engineering is higher than OSD indices. The BLS
indices are similar to the OSD indices, but are below most of the DOD contractor range. The GI
indices straddle the contractor industry average.
Table 3: Engineering Rates of Growth
Figure 26: DOD Contractor History vs. All Indices (Engineering)
DOD Contractor 2.2 - 5.6%
Industry Avg 3.8%
Rotary Wing 3.1%
Fixed Wing 4.4%
BLS Engineering 3.2%
BLS Engineering Technician 2.3%
GI Aircraft 3.6%
GI Helicopter 3.6%
GI Missiles 3.5%
Engineering
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. ALL INDICESENGINEERING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry ENG Avg
Ktr B1(High)
Ktr D(Low)
BLS Eng Tech
BLS Mech/ElecTechBLS Aero Eng
BLS ENG AvgOSD (RDT&E)
GI Missiles
GI Helos
GI Aircraft
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
29
2. MANUFACTURING
Figure 27 shows all four alternatives for manufacturing on the same graph. Overall, most of the
range of the DOD contractor history for manufacturing is higher than OSD indices. The BLS
indices are similar to the OSD indices, and in some cases below, but are below most of the DOD
contractor range. The GI indices straddle the contractor industry average for manufacturing as
well.
Table 4: Manufacturing Rates of Growth
Figure 27: DOD Contractor History vs. All Indices (Manufacturing)
DOD Contractor 2.1 - 5.7%
Industry Avg 3.5%
Rotary Wing 3.7%
Fixed Wing 3.4%
BLS Production 2.4%
GI Aircraft 3.6%
GI Helicopter 3.6%
GI Missiles 3.5%
Manufacturing
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
DOD CONTRACTORS vs. ALL INDICESMANUFACTURING (Actuals 2005-2011)
Industry MFG Avg
OSD (APN)
Ktr C(High)
Ktr B1(Low)
BLS MFG AvgBLS A/C Structure
BLS Machinists
GI Aircraft
GI HelosGI Missiles
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
30
V. SUMMARY
A. CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the historical pattern of the Navy’s OSD indices forecasts for the past twelve years
reveals that the Navy indices have been flattening over time and are volatile in the latest forecast.
When plotting each of the services OSD indices for their appropriations, they follow a similar
pattern despite the service-unique outlays applied to determine weighted indices. This leads to
the conclusion that findings from this study for a Navy solution would be applicable to the other
services as well.
Analysis of DOD contractor direct labor rate history shows that rates of growth for individual
labor categories are outpacing the OSD indices.
For the BLS data, the rate of growth is similar to what is forecasted from the OSD indices.
Analysis of GI commodity indices for labor for Aircraft, Helicopter, and Missile commodities
shows rates of growth are outpacing the OSD indices.
For both engineering and manufacturing, OSD indices are lower than contractor DLR growth. It
was also found that OSD Indices are lower than BLS & GI indices. This analysis shows that
OSD Indices alone are insufficient to capture true economic conditions experienced by defense
contractors and DOD contractor DLR history does show a discernible pattern that could be used
for budget forecasting for engineering and manufacturing labor.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
This step included determining the how the results can be used and defining specific
recommendations from the results, including what may be the appropriate level of a cost estimate
to apply growth factors. Slopes or rates of growth were defined for each category to be used as
the DLR growth factors for estimating.
Analysis confirms that in almost all engineering and manufacturing labor categories, the DOD
contractor history is outpacing the OSD inflation indices that are directed to be used for budget
forecasting. Industry average rates of growth for both engineering and manufacturing maintain
this same trend.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
31
Figure 28: Study Results Compounded
DLR growth factors have been quantified and are recommended to be used in lieu of OSD
indices to provide a more accurate representation of the Aerospace Industrial sector for
budgeting. Factors were calculated from DOD contractor DLRs (individual labor categories,
contractor averages, and industry averages), from BLS indices, and from GI indices. BLS
factors run closest to the 2% OSD indices, followed by Global Insight and industry averages
~3.8%, and at the top were the highest DOD contractor engineering and manufacturing rates of
growth ~5.7%. These DLR growth factors can be applied at different levels: total costs, total
labor estimates, and to direct labor estimates. These factors can be used for different estimate
purposes (negotiations vs. budgeting vs. planning) to account for the true economic effects
experienced by DOD contractors on NAVAIR contracts.
Several options were determined for applying DLR Growth Factors depending on the estimate
purpose and the level of cost data available. Listed below are the potential factors that could be
used over a spectrum of cost estimates. Depending on the goal – to obtain a lower estimate (as in
negotiation positions) or a higher estimate (budgeting or planning estimates), the cost analyst has
options on what to use to capture a more accurate rate of growth for their program.
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cu
mu
lati
ve R
ate
of
Gro
wth
# of Years
Compounded Rate of Growth
OSD
BLS Eng Tech
BLS Mfg
GI Aircraft
GI Helo
GI Missiles
Industry Avg Eng
Industry Avg Mfg
KTR Eng
KTR Mfg2%
FYDP
3.8%
5.7%
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
32
Figure 29: Potential DLR Growth Factor Options
Recommendations: The DLR Growth Factors can be applied at different levels depending on the levels of the
estimate:
(1). Total Unit Cost
Using the DLR growth factors at this level captures growth at the prime contractor (labor) and
subcontractor (material) level. It is recommended that the factors be weighted between
manufacturing and engineering.
(2). Total Labor Cost
Using the DLR growth factors at this level captures prime contractor labor growth only. It is
recommended that the factors be weighted between manufacturing and engineering.
(3). Total Manufacturing Labor & Total Engineering Labor
The DLR growth factor for the industry average or contractor site specific average can be
applied at the total for manufacturing and engineering estimates.
(4). Manufacturing Labor & Engineering Labor by Labor Category
The DLR growth factor can be applied at the labor category level if the estimate is broken out to
that level and is one of the six contractors the factors were developed from.
The application of the DLR growth factor depends on the available cost data and the level of
estimating. Table 5 lists the DLR growth factors for engineering and manufacturing derived from
the study in percent form for the BLS, GI, and industry averages. An additional methodology is
to apply the highest contractor history for either manufacturing or engineering to the estimate.
Potential DLR Growth Factors: Use OSD as-is (no adjustment)
• For negotiation positions
Use BLS factors
• For negotiations, budgets, estimates
Use GI (NAVAIR) factors
• For negotiations, budgets, estimates
Use Contractor specific averages
• Applied when contractor is known, categories unknown
Use Contractor growth by labor category
• Applied when contractor, labor categories are known
Use industry composite for engineering or manufacturing
• Useful for AoAs, source selections, etc. when contractor unknown
Use highest contractor history
• Useful for AoAs, source selections, etc. when contractor unknown
Lower
estimate
Higher
estimate
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
33
.
Table 5: DLR Growth Factors using BLS, GI, Industry Averages, & Highest History
Table 6 lists the DLR growth factors that are specific to the contractors reviewed in this study
and the industry average.
Table 6: DLR Growth Factors using DOD Contractors and Industry Averages
Use OSD as-is (no adjustment)
Use BLS factors
Use GI (NAVAIR) factors
Use industry composite for engineering or manufacturing
Use highest contractor history
Engineering 3.15%
Engineering Technician 2.30%
Production 2.37%
Aircraft 3.61% Helicopter 3.59% Missile 3.50%
Airframe 2.55% Airframe 2.47% Propulsion 3.99%
Engines 4.55% Engines 4.53% TDD 2.39%
Electronics 3.72% Electronics 3.79% Warhead 4.17%
Engineering 3.84% Manufacturing 3.52%
Rotary Wing 3.10% Rotary Wing 3.70%
Fixed Wing 4.40% Fixed Wing 3.40%
Engineering 5.59%
Manufacturing 5.71%
Use Contractor specific growth or industry averages
ENG MFG
KTR A 3.75% 3.47%
KTR B1 5.59% 2.11%
KTR B2 4.35% 2.99%
KTR B3 3.31% 3.16%
KTR C 3.75% 5.71%
KTR D 2.86% 3.20%
KTR E 3.45% 2.91%
KTR F1 5.37% 5.29%
KTR F2 3.46% 3.17%
Industry 3.84% 3.52%
Adjustment Factors
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
34
Table 7 shows the DLR growth factors that were calculated by individual labor category by
contractor by site.
Table 7: DLR Growth Factors using DOD Contractor Labor Categories
C. FURTHER ANALYSIS
Future Expansion of this study can include researching the following areas:
• Additional analysis of Navy contractors including major subcontractors,
• Analysis on prime contractors for other services,
• Other Considerations:
– Geographical / regional impacts on direct labor rates,
– Contract type as a factor in rate of growth,
– Expanding analysis levels to include Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs),
• DOD Contractor proposed rates.
DOD CONTRACTOR PROPOSED RATES RESULTS In the analysis of the DOD contractor data collected, there was a pattern observed across several
contractors. In many engineering and manufacturing labor categories, the contractors’
projections were more than double the rate of growth from their own historical pattern. This
observation led to the question: Is a second DLR growth factor needed to account for this?
Use Contractor growth by labor categoryKTR A Factor KTR C Factor KTR F1 Factor
ENG Plant Eng 3.84% ENG Dev Flight 6.14% ENG Design Eng 6.26%
Prod Eng 4.30% A/C Eng 1.00% Flight Test 5.13%
Mod / Test 3.10% Avionics 4.96% Support Eng 4.18%
MFG Mfg/ Field Ops 3.50% Eng Test (Site 1) 7.97% R&D Eng 1.00%
Quality Assurance 3.45% Eng Tech 3.10% Tech Services 11.26%
Eng Tech Support 4.10% MFG Production 5.02%
KTR B1 Factor Eng Test (Site 2) 1.00% Mfg Support Serv 8.91%
ENG General Eng 6.05% MFG Assy (Site 1) 6.84% QA 5.62%
Test Eng 4.79% Fabrication 6.78% Tool Design 1.60%
Design Eng 6.50% Tooling 5.48%
Eng Supervision 4.72% Assy (Site 2) 9.84% KTR F2 Factor
Sys Eng 5.91% Flight Ops 10.20% ENG Eng Design 3.40%
MFG Mfg 1.66% Ops 1.73% Offsite Eng 3.65%
Mfg Support 1.88% Prod Mgt 2.19% Test & Evaluation 3.25%
QA 2.78% Prod Support 2.62% Mfg Eng 3.54%
MFG Tooling 3.64%
KTR B2 Factor KTR D Factor Mfg Support 4.02%
ENG General Eng 3.95% ENG Eng Labs 3.20% Composites 1.00%
Eng Test 4.64% Eng Design 2.93% Assy (Site 1) 1.63%
Design Eng 4.44% Flight Test 2.46% Assy (Site 2) 1.94%
MFG Production 2.99% MFG Assy 4.24% Fabrication 2.33%
QA 2.99% Program 2 Fab 2.86% QA 2.44%
Tooling 2.99% Program 1 Fab 2.86% Offsite Mfg 13.26%
KTR B3 Factor KTR E Factor
ENG General Eng 3.64% ENG Eng Tech 3.28%
Test Eng 2.83% Eng Services 3.63%
Design Eng 3.46% MFG Mfg Touch (Site 1) 2.78%
MFG Production 1.07% Site 1 Support 2.95%
Quality 4.02% Mfg Touch (Site 2) 3.10%
Tool Fab 2.37% Site 2 Support 2.83%
Tool Eng/Design 5.02%
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
35
Figure 30 shows an example of the data collected and normalized for one contractor for one
engineering labor category. The contractor’s historical data (or actuals) are plotted in green, with
its corresponding trend line in black. The contractor’s forecasted projection for this same labor
category is shown in red with its corresponding trend line. For this extreme case, the contractor
historical rate of growth on DLRs is 4.4%, but the contractor proposal includes a 14.8% rate of
growth. In contrast, the OSD indices for Aircraft Procurement, Navy (APN) that would be used
for budgeting is 1.8%.
Figure 30: DOD Contractor Example: Design Engineering (2005-2020)
While this is only a sample of one contractor and one labor category, the same pattern was
repeated across different contractors. A follow-on study could include investigating the gap
between the contractors’ history and contractors’ proposal rates of growth vs. OSD indices to
determine how this evidence can be applied to a budget forecasting recommendation.
y = 0.0444x + 0.9577R² = 0.998
y = 0.1477x + 0.9346R² = 0.9989
0.60
1.10
1.60
2.10
2.60
3.10
3.60
Gro
wth
fro
m 2
00
5
Year
KTR B2: Design Engineering (2005-2020)
Design Engineering (Actuals)
Design Engineering(Forecast)
Linear (Design Engineering(Actuals))
Linear (Design Engineering(Forecast) )
History: 4.44%
Projection: 14.77%
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
36
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
• Glossary of Compensation Terms, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Report 923, August 1998.
• Contractor A Rates Report, DCMA, 11 October 2012.
• Contractor A Disclosure Statement excerpts provided by DCMA, November 2012.
• Contractor B1 Rate Forecast Management Manual, September 2011.
• Contractor B1 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 23 July 2012.
• Contractor B2 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 27 March 2012.
• Contractor B2 DCMA Overhead Should Cost Review Report April 2012.
• Contractor B2 DCMA Rate Review Report, April 2011.
• Contractor B3 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 24 March 2012.
• Contractor B3 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 24 March 2012.
• Contractor C: Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, August 15, 2011.
• Contractor D: Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 29 August 2102.
• Contractor E: Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 15 February 2012.
• Contractor E: Rate Review Report, 15 June 2011.
• Contractor E: DCMA Direct Labor rate Analysis, Excel file, 1 November 2012.
• Contractor F1: 2005 Annual Direct Labor Rates Report, January 2006.
• Contractor F1: 2006 Q4 Variance Report for Direct Labor Rates, January 2007.
• Contractor F1: CY07 Direct Labor Rate Variance Report, January 2008.
• Contractor F1: 2008 Q4 Variance Report for Direct Labor Rates, January 2009.
• Contractor F1: 2009 Forward Pricing Rate Proposal, 7 July 2009.
• Contractor F1: CY10 Direct Labor Rate Variance Report, January 2011.
• Contractor F1 2011 Rate Calculations, Excel spreadsheet from DCMA, 6 May 2011.
• Contactor F2: Site 2 Direct Labor Rates Overhead Should Cost Analysis – History, Excel
spreadsheet form DCMA, 29 June 2009.
• Contractor F2: Site 2: CY08-CY-12 Direct Labor Rate History, Excel spreadsheet from
DCMA, 18 August 2011.
• DOD Inflation Handbook, Wise, Gregory A and Cochran, Charles B, February, 2006.
• IDA Inflation Study, April 2012.
• OSD Acquisition Guidebook, Volume 3, Ch. 7 - Analyzing Direct Labor Costs, 18
September 2009.
• Internal NAVAIR Cost Department briefs on Global Insight Indices, 2011, 2012.
• Introduction to Escalation Indices and Their Applications to Aircraft and Weapons,
NAVAIR Systems Team briefing, 15 July 1993.
• DCAA Contract Audit Manual, Chapter 8, Cost Accounting Standards, November 2012.
• Websites:
• http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/cpf/docs/contract_pricing_finance_guide/vol3_ch7.pdf Page 6 • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Insight • http://www.ihs.com/products/pricing-purchasing-analysis/index.aspx • www.acqnotes.com/Acquisitions/Inflation.html
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
37
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. STUDY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The following are the list of issues and concerns that were addressed throughout the study:
1. Concern from Advisor on the PROPRIETARY NATURE OF DATA
Data masking for actual data using 2005 base year conversion.
Contractor Rosetta stone was used for contractor names.
2. Determining appropriate labor categories to use.
Collected labor category definitions from Disclosure Statements and
Contractor Estimating Manuals to classify labor categories as engineering or
manufacturing.
3. Determine the time horizon for the data to be collected.
Historical data and Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP) projections may be
different across companies. Historical data was collected from 2005-2011 and FPRP
projections were collected for 2012 and beyond (3-5 years depending on contractor).
4. Does the study focus on cost history or current projections?
The study focused on the historical data.
Analyzing contractor DLR projections were left for a follow-on study.
5. How is variance in FPRPs, Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), &
Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs) vs. actuals accounted for?
The contractor’s completed historical actuals were used (2005-2011) with FPRPs for
forecasts (2012-2018 or available years).
6. How is forecasting error by the contractor and/or DCMA taken into account?
The study did not include any forecasted data from the contractor or DCMA.
7. Is a Public Affairs Office (PAO)/legal review required before release of reports?
The final presentation and final report do not contain any specific traceable contractor
data. All data has been masked and indexed and the letter designations to not reveal
any contractor names.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
38
Concerns from Estimating Plan brief:
8. Why are Fringe Benefits not included in this study?
Fringe benefits are listed as a study limitation as they are considered overhead
expenses.
9. How will potential holes in contractor data be handled?
Holes were filled-in based on historical trends projected through any data gaps. The
dataset determination of 2005-2020 timeframe was also chosen to minimize potential
data holes.
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
39
APPENDIX B. STUDY DATA
OSD Indices:
Weighted Index % Change By Year
APN OPN WPN RDTENPur
2005 2.82% 4.23% 2.76% 2.63%
2006 2.77% 3.31% 2.51% 3.12%
2007 2.33% 2.18% 2.18% 2.45%
2008 1.51% 1.64% 1.59% 1.83%
2009 1.42% 1.34% 1.47% 1.29%
2010 2.21% 2.06% -0.88% 1.51%
2011 1.81% 1.85% 4.57% 1.91%
2012 1.73% 1.75% 1.73% 1.77%
2013 1.72% 1.71% 1.71% 1.66%
2014 1.77% 1.75% 1.76% 1.73%
2015 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
2016 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
2017 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
2018 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
2019 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
2020 1.80% 1.80% 1.80% 1.80%
Average 1.93% 2.04% 1.89% 1.92%
Change
Avg thru 2015 1.99% 2.15% 1.93% 1.97%
NAVY AIR FORCE
Year APN OPN WPN RDT&E PurRDT&E
CompYear
RDT&E
AF
APAF
(Special)
APAF
(Other)
MPAF
(Special)
MPAF
(Other)
OPAF
(Special)OPAF (Other)
2005 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2005 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
2006 1.0277 1.0331 1.0251 1.0312 1.0312 2006 1.0302 1.0267 1.0266 1.0280 1.0289 1.0312 1.0297
2007 1.0517 1.0557 1.0475 1.0564 1.0564 2007 1.0573 1.0514 1.0540 1.0617 1.0548 1.0580 1.0556
2008 1.0676 1.0730 1.0642 1.0757 1.0768 2008 1.0786 1.0653 1.0710 1.0810 1.0741 1.0804 1.0773
2009 1.0827 1.0873 1.0798 1.0896 1.0898 2009 1.0929 1.0881 1.0896 1.0896 1.0896 1.0952 1.0920
2010 1.1066 1.1097 1.0702 1.1060 1.1064 2010 1.1068 1.1175 1.1114 1.1089 1.1056 1.1060 1.1070
2011 1.1266 1.1302 1.1191 1.1272 1.1275 2011 1.1284 1.1224 1.1312 1.1299 1.1298 1.1293 1.1283
2012 1.1460 1.1500 1.1385 1.1471 1.1472 2012 1.1499 1.1424 1.1514 1.1532 1.1511 1.1504 1.1507
2013 1.1657 1.1696 1.1581 1.1661 1.1661 2013 1.1691 1.1623 1.1711 1.1726 1.1707 1.1697 1.1701
2014 1.1864 1.1901 1.1784 1.1863 1.1861 2014 1.1889 1.1830 1.1921 1.1929 1.1911 1.1892 1.1898
2015 1.2077 1.2115 1.1997 1.2076 1.2073 2015 1.2103 1.2043 1.2135 1.2143 1.2125 1.2106 1.2112
2016 1.2295 1.2333 1.2212 1.2294 1.2288 2016 1.2321 1.2260 1.2354 1.2362 1.2344 1.2324 1.2330
2017 1.2516 1.2555 1.2432 1.2515 1.2509 2017 1.2543 1.2481 1.2576 1.2584 1.2566 1.2546 1.2552
2018 1.2741 1.2781 1.2656 1.2740 1.2734 2018 1.2769 1.2705 1.2802 1.2811 1.2792 1.2772 1.2778
2019 1.2971 1.3011 1.2884 1.2970 1.2962 2019 1.2998 1.2934 1.3033 1.3042 1.3022 1.3002 1.3008
2020 1.3204 1.3246 1.3116 1.3203 1.3195 2020 1.3232 1.3167 1.3267 1.3276 1.3257 1.3236 1.3242
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
40
DOD Contractor History:
ARMY DEFENSE WIDE
Year APA OPA MIPA RDTEA Year DW RDT&E DW Proc
2005 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 2005 1.0000 1.0000
2006 1.0271 1.0266 1.0219 1.0279 2006 1.0304 1.0261
2007 1.0478 1.0514 1.0416 1.0525 2007 1.0560 1.0474
2008 1.0645 1.0691 1.0580 1.0726 2008 1.0760 1.0638
2009 1.0800 1.0834 1.0715 1.0865 2009 1.0894 1.0782
2010 1.0994 1.1038 1.0907 1.1033 2010 1.1052 1.0978
2011 1.1209 1.1249 1.1115 1.1261 2011 1.1264 1.1181
2012 1.1430 1.1441 1.1305 1.1459 2012 1.1465 1.1375
2013 1.1682 1.1729 1.1613 1.1687 2013 1.1657 1.1569
2014 1.1890 1.1937 1.1820 1.1894 2014 1.1856 1.1771
2015 1.2104 1.2152 1.2033 1.2108 2015 1.2070 1.1983
2016 1.2322 1.2371 1.2250 1.2326 2016 1.2287 1.2199
2017 1.2544 1.2594 1.2470 1.2548 2017 1.2508 1.2418
2018 1.2769 1.2820 1.2695 1.2774 2018 1.2733 1.2642
2019 1.2999 1.3051 1.2923 1.3004 2019 1.2962 1.2869
2020 1.3233 1.3286 1.3156 1.3238 2020 1.3196 1.3101
CONTRACTOR A DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.86 0.90 0.92 0.94 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.16 1.19 1.24 Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.36 1.42 1.45 1.51 Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.95 1.00 1.07 1.11 1.18 1.18 1.19 1.22
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.26 1.30 1.36 1.36 1.42 1.44 1.50
= Engineering Categories
= Manufacturing Categories
CONTRACTOR B1 DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.15 1.21 1.27 1.32
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.38 1.44 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.71 1.79 1.87 1.95
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.13
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.17 1.20 1.23 1.25 1.28 1.31 1.35 1.38 1.41
CONTRACTOR B2 DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.76 0.81 0.86 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.12 1.17 1.21 1.28
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 2.20 2.32 2.51 2.67 2.82 2.96 3.11 3.26 3.42
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.74 0.77 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.96 1.00 1.03 1.10 1.15 1.14 1.16 1.18
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.38 1.46 1.53 1.61 1.69 1.77
CONTRACTOR B3 DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.99 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.15 1.17 1.20
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.25 1.31 1.36 1.41 1.46
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.98 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.19
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.23 1.29 1.36 1.41 1.45
CONTRACTOR C Direct Labor RatesCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.21 1.22
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.37 1.42 1.47
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.16 1.21 1.29 1.35
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.42 1.49 1.55 1.62 1.69 1.76
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
41
BLS Wage Rates Indexed:
CONTRACTOR D DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.95 1.00 1.06 1.08 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.19
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.21 1.28 1.35 1.42
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.96 1.00 1.01 1.07 1.10 1.14 1.14 1.16
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.20 1.26 1.32 1.37
CONTRACTOR E DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.96 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.21
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.25 1.29 1.34 1.38 1.43
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.96 1.00 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.19
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.24 1.28 1.33 1.37 1.42
CONTRACTOR F1 DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.09 1.19 1.24 1.27 1.29
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.34 1.40 1.46 1.51
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 0.95 1.00 1.06 1.10 1.15 1.22 1.29 1.30
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.34 1.39 1.44 1.49
CONTRACTOR F2 DIRECT LABOR RATESCOMPOSITE GRAPHS Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Engineering (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.16 1.17 1.21
Engineering (Avg Forecast) 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45
Manufacturing (Avg Actuals) 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.11 1.09 1.17 1.20
Manufacturing (Avg Forecast) 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers 0.81 0.84 0.87 0.92 0.94 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.22
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers 0.80 0.85 0.87 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.05 1.08 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.16
17-2071 Electrical Engineers 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.17
17-2072Electronics Engineers, Except
Computer0.83 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.18
17-2081 Environmental Engineers 0.84 0.89 0.90 0.93 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.14 1.18 1.18
17-2111
Health and Safety Engineers, Except
Mining Safety Engineers and
Inspectors
0.84 0.88 0.89 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.17
17-2112 Industrial Engineers 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17
17-2131 Materials Engineers 0.85 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.10 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.22
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers 0.87 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.19
0.84 0.88 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.17 1.18 AVERAGE ENGINEERS
BLS ENGINEERING
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
17-3012 Electrical and Electronics Drafters 0.83 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.18
17-3013 Mechanical Drafters 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.09 1.13 1.15
17-3021
Aerospace Engineering and
Operations Technicians 0.91 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.03 1.09 1.10 1.14
17-3023
Electrical and Electronic
Engineering Technicians 0.85 0.89 0.91 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.16 1.18
17-3024 Electro-Mechanical Technicians 0.85 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.94 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.16
17-3026 Industrial Engineering Technicians 0.90 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.02 1.00 1.03 1.05
17-3027 Mechanical Engineering Technicians 0.89 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.14
0.87 0.90 0.92 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.11 1.14 AVERAGE ENG TECHNICIANS
BLS ENGINEERING TECHNICIAN
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
42
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors/Managers of
Production and Operating Workers 0.87 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.09 1.12 1.14 1.16
51-2011
Aircraft Structure, Surfaces, Rigging,
and Systems Assemblers 0.90 0.86 0.89 0.85 0.88 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.02 1.05 1.06 1.14
51-2021 Coil Winders, Tapers, and Finishers 0.83 0.90 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.14 1.18
51-2022
Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Assemblers 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.95 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.15
51-2023
Electromechanical Equipment
Assemblers 0.86 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.97 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.07 1.11 1.14 1.15
51-2031
Engine and Other Machine
Assemblers 0.81 0.82 0.86 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.98 0.92 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.09
51-2041
Structural Metal Fabricators and
Fitters 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.08 1.12 1.14 1.17
51-2091 Figrglass Laminators and Fabricators 0.93 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.09 1.11 1.13 1.12
51-2092 Team Assemblers 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.06 1.11 1.12 1.14
51-4011
Computer-Controlled Machine Tool
Operators, Metal and Plastic 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.12 1.14
51-4012
Numerical Tool and Process Control
Programmers 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.93 0.96 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.10
51-4021
Extruding and Drawing Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic 0.87 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.18 1.18
51-4022
Forging Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 0.92 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.13 1.15
51-4023
Rolling Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.09 1.13 1.17 1.20 1.21
51-4031
Cutting, Punching, and Press
Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic 0.89 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.08 1.12 1.12 1.14
51-4032
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic 0.88 0.93 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.16
51-4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and
Buffing Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic 0.87 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.09 1.11
51-4034
Lathe and Turning Machine Tool
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic 0.91 0.94 0.96 0.95 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.07 1.09 1.14
51-4035
Milling and Planing Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.07 1.13 1.17 1.17
51-4041 Machinists 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.10 1.13 1.15
51-4051
Metal-Refining Furnace Operators
and Tenders 0.87 0.91 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.04 1.10 1.15 1.19 1.19
51-4052 Pourers and Casters, Metal 0.91 0.95 0.95 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.07 1.09 1.13 1.15 1.16
51-4061 Model Makers, Metal and Plastic 0.77 0.81 0.85 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.96 0.97 1.00
51-4062 Patternmakers, Metal and Plastic 0.90 0.94 0.96 1.05 1.03 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.12
51-4071 Foundry Mold and Coremakers 0.84 0.87 0.88 0.94 0.96 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.03 1.03
51-4072
Molding, Coremaking, and Casting
Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.14
51-4081
Multiple Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic 0.93 0.96 0.98 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.09
51-4111 Tool and Die Makers 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.07
51-4121
Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and
Brazers 0.90 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.02 1.05 1.10 1.13 1.16 1.17
51-4122
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing
Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders 0.92 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.09 1.12
51-4191
Heat Treating Equipment Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.13
51-4192 Lay-Out Workers, Metal and Plastic 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.07 1.08 1.11 1.16 1.16
51-4193
Plating and Coating Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.09 1.12
51-4194
Tool Grinders, Filers, and
Sharpeners 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.04 1.08 1.10 1.10
0.88 0.92 0.94 0.97 0.98 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.11 1.13 AVERAGE PRODUCTION
BLS PRODUCTION
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
43
GI Indices:
Average
Aircraft
Average
Helicopter
Average
Missile
2005 1.000 1.000 1.000
2006 1.017 1.015 1.034
2007 1.057 1.052 1.083
2008 1.096 1.089 1.110
2009 1.149 1.143 1.163
2010 1.188 1.182 1.211
2011 1.220 1.216 1.233
2012 1.223 1.217 1.243
2013 1.260 1.254 1.276
2014 1.296 1.289 1.309
2015 1.333 1.327 1.345
2016 1.375 1.368 1.385
2017 1.420 1.413 1.427
2018 1.463 1.456 1.468
2019 1.505 1.499 1.507
2020 1.548 1.541 1.546
GI(NAVAIR) Weighted Index Change By Year
Airframe Engine Electronics Average Aircraft
2005 12.86% 2.82% 4.20% 6.63%
2006 -0.20% 1.73% 3.42% 1.65%
2007 -3.02% 9.59% 5.22% 3.93%
2008 0.37% 4.92% 5.47% 3.59%
2009 2.90% 6.90% 4.38% 4.73%
2010 2.36% 4.06% 3.55% 3.32%
2011 5.09% 2.05% 1.36% 2.83%
2012 -0.73% 0.89% 0.37% 0.18%
2013 3.06% 3.13% 2.85% 3.02%
2014 2.96% 2.79% 2.74% 2.83%
2015 2.83% 2.95% 2.92% 2.90%
2016 2.97% 3.29% 3.15% 3.13%
2017 3.08% 3.45% 3.13% 3.22%
2018 2.93% 3.23% 2.92% 3.03%
2019 3.01% 2.97% 2.79% 2.92%
2020 2.96% 2.78% 2.74% 2.83%
Average 2.71% 3.60% 3.20% 3.17%
Change
Avg thru
2015 2.59% 3.80% 3.32% 3.24%
GI(NAVAIR) AIRCRAFT Weighted Index % Change By Year
MCEA CAPSTONE HISTORICAL REVIEW OF DOD CONTRACTOR TEAM
FINAL REPORT DIRECT LABOR RATES NAVAIR
44
Airframe Engine ElectronicsAverage
Helicopter
2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2006 0.99 1.02 1.03 1.01
2007 0.95 1.11 1.09 1.05
2008 0.95 1.17 1.15 1.09
2009 0.98 1.25 1.20 1.14
2010 1.00 1.30 1.24 1.18
2011 1.06 1.33 1.26 1.22
2012 1.05 1.34 1.26 1.22
2013 1.08 1.38 1.30 1.25
2014 1.11 1.42 1.33 1.29
2015 1.15 1.46 1.37 1.33
2016 1.18 1.51 1.42 1.37
2017 1.22 1.56 1.46 1.41
2018 1.25 1.61 1.50 1.46
2019 1.29 1.66 1.54 1.50
2020 1.33 1.71 1.59 1.54
Average 110.00% 136.49% 129.64% 125.38%
Change
Avg thru
2015 103.02% 125.33% 120.29% 116.21%
GI (NAVAIR) HELICOPTER Weighted Index Change By Year
Year Propulsion TDD Labor Warhead Average Missile
2005 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2006 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.03
2007 1.12 1.10 1.03 1.08
2008 1.16 1.16 1.01 1.11
2009 1.22 1.23 1.03 1.16
2010 1.26 1.30 1.07 1.21
2011 1.29 1.32 1.09 1.23
2012 1.30 1.32 1.12 1.24
2013 1.34 1.35 1.14 1.28
2014 1.38 1.39 1.16 1.31
2015 1.41 1.43 1.19 1.35
2016 1.46 1.47 1.22 1.39
2017 1.50 1.52 1.25 1.43
2018 1.55 1.57 1.29 1.47
2019 1.59 1.61 1.32 1.51
2020 1.63 1.66 1.35 1.55
Average 132.82% 134.26% 114.28% 127.12%
Change
Avg thru
2015 122.91% 124.01% 107.82% 118.24%
GI(NAVAIR) MISSILE Weighted Index Change By Year