"It took billions of dollars (and 1960s dollars at that) and 7 years for Grumman to develop the Apollo Lunar Modules. It'd be a massive undertaking to try to reproduce a new LM simply because all of the tooling and expertise is long gone. The drawings still exist on microfiche, the tooling could be reproduced (for many million dollars) but the expertise would have to be grown anew."
First, are you saying it would require some company 7 years to build a lunar lander, now, today?
Second:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apollolm.htm
Apollo LM:
"Unit Price $ : 50.00 million. Craft.Crew Size: 2. Total Length: 6.4 m.
Maximum Diameter: 4.3 m. Total Habitable Volume: 6.65 m3. Total Mass: 14,696 kg. Total Propellants: 10,523 kg."
Ok so these aren't 2002 dollars (maybe they are 1960 dollars- don't know) and maybe this unit price doesn't include development??? But I find difficult to believe that it did require billions in 1960 dollars to develop a lunar lander. You will need to provide me with another ref- don't have the movie.
Even if NASA paid billions to develop LM, I don't see why it would would take billions today. First of all, I don't even want a lander weighing 15 tons. I would separate lander and descent modules- so I'm talking about less than half the vehicle of Apollo LM. Second you have a significant advantage in terms electronic technological development since this time.
Plus we have some material technological advancement- and variety of material has been tested in space environment.
I think there are companies out there (maybe not Lockmart or Boeing) which would quite happy to build lunar lander for 50 million each- with total order of say +6 (emergency, descent, ascent, plus spares/mods which could be used cargo or robotic landers. And I think I'm paying too much- I was giving a high number.

"That leaves developing a new lunar lander. This may seem like a relatively small task but it isn't. R&D for developing a new lunar lander would easily go into the billions of dollars simply because it is a challenging task. Weight control is one of the most important factors and lightweight materials are very expensive. In some ways, weight control is more important today than it was in the 1960s simply because we don't have heavy lifters like the Saturn V anymore."

Come on, we didn't need the Saturn V to get to the Moon in the sixties- there were some advantages of having to Saturn V but it wasn't a requirement. Saturn V was a miltary statement and a dream of going to Mars- mostly. And with lots of money to burn, it was also "easier".

"There are some things we can do to reduce the costs of developing a new lunar lander. One of the most important things would be to use off-the-shelf components to the greatest extent possible. There weren't many off-the-shelf components available in the 1960s so just about everything had to be developed from scratch, a difficult and time consuming prospect. To get an idea just how difficult it was, I recommend you watch Episode 4 of "From The Earth to the Moon" ("Spider"), one of the best shows I've seen on the behind the scenes struggle to develop an aerospace vehicle."

Yes, certainly I was thinking of using off the shelf type technology- not just for lander, but most or all of the manned mission. 5 years is not enough time to develop much new technology.

"Just for sake of comparison, Boeing spends billions on R&D for a new airliner design and that's a relatively simple vehicle compared to a lunar lander."
I imagine it would take billions to design and develop a large automobile assembly line. Boeing is spending a lot of money so it can get a lower cost per unit.