PART 1: OVERVIEW
4
Selection of Sustainment Cost Factors
In selecting from possible sustainment cost sources, the most credible factor was assigned to each facility category. General
"credibility" was determined by a priority scheme for groups of cost factor sources. Where two or more cost factors were
available within the top group, a selection was based upon engineering judgment and approved by consensus of the DoD FSM
Configuration/Support Panel.
Sustainment Cost Factor Source Hierarchy
Source 1
Standard, off-the-shelf, commercially published sources (e.g., Whitestone). These sources are considered most desirable due to ease of
access, wide applicability, and lack of bias. Publications cover whole facilities and separate components of facilities, and include
factors from professional associations and certain non-DoD federal, state, or local government agencies.
Source 2
Source 1 cost factors that are applied to facilities with similar but not identical characteristics (e.g., sewage waste treatment facilities
and industrial waste treatment facilities). Source 2 also includes Service-validated cost factors for facilities that have no commercial
counterparts (e.g. missile launch facilities or military ranges).
Source 3
Cost factors derived from Source-1 factors by multiplying the construction cost factor by the ratio of the sustainment cost factor to the
construction cost factor for a similar Source-1 Facilities Analysis Category (e.g. FAC 2115, Aircraft Maintenance Hangar, Depot
derived from FAC 2111, Aircraft Maintenance Hangar).
Distribution of Sustainment Cost Factors
by Source Group
Distribution of Sustainment Cost Factors
100%
For each cost factor, the cost factor table
80%
indicates the source group (1, 2, or 3) that is
60%
intended to reflect its relative accuracy and
40%
20%
77% of the facility categories (representing 93%
0%
of DoD's plant replacement value) are assigned
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 1 sustainment cost factors.
77%
2%
21%
Facility Categories
93%
2%
5%
Plant Value