Farewell Full Cost Accounting?

Well, that's certainly a giant leap in the right direction. Full cost accounting for civil servants was about the dumbest thing the agency ever did. A person spent half their work time chasing charge numbers.

This part at the end was pretty interesting. Anybody know more about the new "Human Exploration Architecture Development program" they mention?

"It is very clear that the above highlights will support a major rebirth at NASA's major Research Centers (Ames, Glenn, and Langley) as we have all been liberated to pursue innovative lines of lower TRL research. ... Those NASA employees whose interests have been more focused on Constellation can also rest assured that NASA will continue its Human Spaceflight Exploration efforts within ESMD's new Human Exploration Architecture Development program, which Congress has already created to replace Constellation in the final FY10 Appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed into law. Constellation may be gone, but rocket science/engineering is here to stay."

This alone is worth the cancellation of Constellation. Good riddance AFNW!

Don't you assume it means

Critical Technology Demonstrations
Flagship demonstration program:
 Pursues projects that are generally funded at $0.4-$1.0 billion over lifetimes of less than 5-years, and
that can include partnerships with international, commercial and other government entities.
 Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable
modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and
other next-generation capabilities.

Critical Technology Demonstrations
 Enabling technology development program:
 Pursues smaller scale (less than $100 million generally) and shorter duration projects that are
competitively selected and also can involve commercial, academic, and international partners.
 Demonstrates a broad range of key technologies, including in-situ resource utilization and advanced
in-space propulsion.

Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D
Target R&D activities include:
 New approaches to first-stage launch propulsion;
 In-space advanced engine technology development
and demonstrations; and
 Foundational – basic - propulsion research.

Robotic Precursor Missions
scout targets for future human activities [...] that will determine the future course of the expansion of human civilization into space.

"A person spent half their work time chasing charge numbers."

Does that mean NASA has too many people for the number of projects and funds?

As an independent contractor I must charge to charge numbers. And it is tough sometimes. But I would have it no other way. It does help keep people focused and identify the slackers. Thus more gets done. I love that.

"Human Spaceflight Exploration efforts within ESMD's new Human Exploration Architecture Development program, which Congress has already created to replace Constellation in the final FY10 Appropriations bill"

HUH?!?!?! Does this mean Congress replaced Constellation last year and didn't even realize it? Wow! That's news to me, probably them too.

It seems that along with cancelling Constellation, NASA has also decided to cancel communication. Every day, I am less and less enamored with the way the new guys are doing business... actually makes me miss O'Keefe.

A person spent half their work time chasing charge numbers.
Guess what I've done for the last 15 years in industry: Chase charge numbers. It's the norm in aerospace, like the sun rising in the morning. It's crucial for our customers to make sure the labor cost lands on the right customer, and the real costs of things are known.

Pending the implementation details, this looks like potentially a HUGE step backward for transparency and fairness. For future make/buy decisions by NASA centers, this allows millions of dollars of civil servant labor cost to be ignored in the comparison. There is no way a company like mine (or dozens more like it) can compete for NASA business against a labor force that's FREE. And our IRAD budgets could never stand up against a blank check.

The problem, of course, is that it's not really free. The salaries and benefits and center overheads are still being paid, just through different accounts that are not managed by the program manager. So the cost of programs will appear to be lower than they really are, and overruns will appear to be non-existent IF they are in-house.

Now tell me how this improves government oversight of program costs and ensures a good deal for the taxpayer.

It's not only the norm for aerospace, it's the norm for industry. Well, at least real world industry.

I'll admit I'm not up on all the details of NASA's version of full cost accounting. I think that the test facilities (Wind tunnels etc.) are charged to projects. And, I am for reducing the costs that a project sees for their usage. Especially if they are made more available to smaller commercial aerospace companies. But I'm not for taking labor off of full cost accounting. Seems a good way to install a "what, me worry?" attitude. Come on NASA managers, you can come up with projects for your employees and spend the effort to try to do a budget. Sounds like laziness.

Yippie!

I am glad full cost accounting is going away and now all the CS slackers can go back to their hiding places and go back to sleep while they charge their time to some obscure big fat juicy charge number like it used to be.

At least they will be out of my way again..........

Spiff out.....

Not only will NASA not have to keep up with where the original funding was going but now they won't have to keep up with where the new $1B per year goes either. Hey, since we're not going anywhere, why keep track of it anyway?

More of my tax dollars going for earth scientists, educators and bureaucrats and now no accountability. Bold, Exciting and New. Woo Hoo!

Communism has already proven to be a failure. Those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Yes, full cost accounting requires work. Work to be accountable for, and work to keep track of. Work is what people do in capitalist systems.

I have worked in industry and as a civil servant. Here is my take. Full cost accounting has it's place. But I worked as a contractor for NASA at a test facility. We used to be cost plus. Someone would come in and ask for a test and now know what was involved. We would work quickly and get the job done. Once Full Cost accounting was started we had to take a week to put a budget together, write a task order, schedule, and go through a long signature loop. All for a test that took a week. So it was 3 weeks of paperwork for a routine test. And when it was really a rush we just did the testing anyway and filled in the paperwork after the fact.

What I am saying is there really are service contracts where the government is paying for headcount and availability. If you want someone available right away full cost accounting gets in the way unless you subvert the system. But if there was a system where people just reported what if anything they were working on without actually needing a task order it would give you information about staffing.

Now there are some contracts where you want full cost accounting because the tasks are big, take a long time, and are well defined.

JMHO

Am I the only one who finds this galling given the uncertainty and upset so many are facing? Seems like an increase in entitlement to me.

My personal experience on both the project management side and the worker side is that the implementation was the problem, not the concept. I think most NASA personnel are fine with charging 40 hours a week to the projects they work upon in the fraction that they work them. The accounting gets pretty funny after that point, and that is what really made full cost accounting (and Earned Value Management) such a bear with which to work.

Full cost budgeting will still be in effect. My understanding is that the difference is that civil servant funds will no longer be allocated directly to programs. However, if centers get program funding then civil servants would still charge to those programs. What this recognizes is that there may be work that civil servants do that is beneficial to the agency, but not envisioned by program managers at HQ. This is particularly relevant to the research centers which have a hard enough time attracting top notch researchers. At the employee level, accountability has not changed. Having fewer charge numbers won't make civil servants more or less accountable to their management.