presented in Figure C.1. This process utilized an extensive database available to the contractor from many past projects performed by NASA and an associated array of experienced support contractors. Thus, despite some mission-unique elements, the size and scale of the space projects were well within the experience base of the contractor and the parametric model employed for the analysis by the contractor.
Ground-based systems required a different treatment since they are typically developed by a consortium consisting of universities and/or federally funded agencies with an associated mix of government and private funds. Management and review of these activities involve unique institutionally driven processes compared to space-based activities. A relevant cost and schedule database for past large ground-based projects is largely nonexistent. Furthermore, the size and cost for large ground projects have approached those being built for space only in the past decade. Each of the ground-based projects evaluated in the CATE process required an extrapolation from existing facilities using key discriminating factors following the process shown in Figure C.2.
Because the available database for ground projects did not support a parametric analysis as used for the space projects, a bidirectional analysis was employed. A project’s own bottom-up costs were assessed by the contractor in consultation with the committee and panels. Once this first element was completed, the contractor then identified the specific discriminating elements requiring cost or schedule analogies and extrapolation. Further information was requested of the activities being assessed when information gaps were identified. This approach was considered by the committee to be the most appropriate method for achieving a realistic cost estimate for the ground projects, and it was successful as demonstrated by the contractor’s being able to provide an assessment of technical readiness, risk, and cost within the