RE: Cost benefit analysis

[Warnick, Walt]

One problem with applying CBA to policy formulation is ensuring reliability and objectivity.  Too often, CBA is manipulated for predetermined policy positions.  EPA once produced a Regulatory Impact Analysis that contended that benefits from the phaseout of CFCs are $8 trillion to $32 trillion.  In such cases, CBA does more to confound, rather than illuminate, rational policy formulation.   Is there a practical way for policy makers to assess the reliability and objectivity of CBA?   Walt Warnick   -----Original Message----- From: Driessnack, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cost benefit analysis In defense you can say that almost all of the weapons related  spending (Procurement and RDT&E budget – almost half of the budget when you consider the spare purchases) is accomplished having gone through some CBA in the process of deciding the approach to develop, procure, and then maintain the equipment.  An Analysis of Alternative is required along with estimates (actually by several layers of organizations).   The other source to look at would be the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).  This policy drives use of CBA for certain purchases.  So you could estimate off of this policy!    jdd   John D Driessnack, PMP, CCE/A Professor, Defense Acquisition University PMT-250/352, DAU Risk/Tools Subject Matter Expert DAWIA PM, Acq Logi, FM Level III NE-Capital Campus, Faculty Department Program Management and Leadership 9820 Belvoir Rd, Building 205,  Room 115B Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-5565 703-805-4655 (DSN-655) [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX 703-805-3728   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Cost benefit analysis   Does anyone know how often CBA is actually used in making policy?  What percent of the federal budget (or state or local) has been determined by CBA? Cyril Morong