An AMPV cost question, explained

There was a kerfuffle at a Senate hearing this morning over the cost of the Army's Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle. During a hearing of the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) asked Army leaders to account for cost growth in the program, the service's effort to modernize its Vietnam-era M113s.

"We hear that your AMPV program is going to have, I don't know if it's a cost overrun, but an additional charge of $2.6 billion," Durbin said. "What was the reason for this cost growth of $2.6 billion in the AMPV program?"

Acting Army Secretary Patrick Murphy replied: "As far as the AMPV, I will get you back that information."

Here's the deal: AMPV has no cost growth.

For the fledgling program, which began engineering and manufacturing development slightly more than a year ago, the Army last March provided lawmakers an initial Selected Acquisition Report setting a baseline cost estimate of $1 billion for development and just over $12.8 billion for procurement -- or $13.8 billion. Then, two weeks ago, the Army submitted an FY-17 budget request with cost estimates that haven't changed: AMPV remains an estimated $13.8 billion acquisition.

So how did a powerful member of the Senate appropriations panel get the idea that AMPV is suffering cost growth?

Mea culpa: I think I can explain part of the confusion. Last year, late in the day on Feb. 17, 2015, I filed a story that inadvertently compared a GAO estimate of AMPV costs to an Army estimate and incorrectly reported the program was suffering from 25 percent cost growth. The next morning, on Feb. 18, 2015, the story was corrected -- with all mentions of cost-growth removed (and the changes acknowledged and explained).

End of story? It appears not. Andrew Feickert, a ground forces analyst at the Congressional Research Service, wrote an Oct. 28, 2015, report on the AMPV program noting that the Army "did not provide details regarding the almost $2.6 billion cost growth for the Army." While there is no citation for that figure, the preceding headline cites my corrected story -- which, again, removed all mention of cost growth.

Durbin's staff pointed to the CRS report as the basis for his question. -- Jason Sherman