“Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review Name of the program being reviewed / date

Program Risk Assessment Checklist (14 December 2009)
OVERVIEW: Although the checklist can be printed and completed as a "hard copy", it is designed to be completed electronically as an Excel spreadsheet.
When viewed electronically, the small number buttons in the upper left corner of the screen are used to select the level of indenture for the questions in the
checklist. A left mouse click on a number button will expand or collapse the entire checklist to the desired level. A left click on the "+" symbol in the left margin
of the spreadsheet will expand the level of indenture for that section. A left click on the "-" symbol in the left margin of the spreadsheet will collapse the level of
Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer
indenture for that section. The buttons in Row 11 run specific macros. The buttons in Column A allow a user to designate and sort specific questions as
"Special Interest" (i.e., High Priority, Flagged, Question). The colored buttons in Row 11, Column C allow the user to sort questions by Technical Discipline, to
provide a Level 1 roll-up of the risk characters assigned, or to hide specific information. For example selecting the "Logistics" button results in the display of all
Level 1 Logistics-related questions and assigned information. All other questions will be hidden.
COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST:
1. In the upper right corner of the checklist, enter the name of the program being reviewed, the date(s) of the review, along with the name, code and technical
specialty of the person(s) completing the checklist.
2. A "Risk Character" (i.e., R / Y / G / U / NA) should be assigned for each question by direct entry or left clicking in each box to activate the "drop down" menu.
To delete a "Risk Character" from a box, click in the box and press the "Delete" button on the keyboard, or right click on the cell and select "clear contents".
The assigned Risk Characters will automatically total and display in the Level 1 (and Level 2, as applicable) row(s). Selection of a summary tab (Excel "Sheet")
at the bottom of the checklist will provide a summary of all questions assigned a particular risk character (e.g., selecting the RED tab will display all questions
assigned a RED risk character).
3. Any question requiring further attention (Special Interest) should be similarly marked in Column A as "High Priority", "Flagged", or "Question" to facilitate
follow-up.
4. Narrative, amplifying, and / or mitigation information should be entered in the "Comments Mitigation" box (Column J) at the right of each question.

CAUTION: Entries, changes or deletions to risk characters or comments should only be made on the expanded checklist page; NOT on any
of the summary pages. Any entries entered directly on the summary pages will disable linkage within the checklist.

SAVING THE CHECKLIST: Save the completed checklist in a new file with a unique name such as "UAV CDR 14Dec09ajo".

High EVM Hardware HSI Interoperability Logistics PQM

Priority
vel
Le
ow
Sh

All

Programmatic RAM Risk Software Technology Training T&E

F Flagged
l
a Question
Q
g Hide TD Unhide TD Hide NA Unhide NA
u
g Risk Character High Priority
e
e
s R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applicable
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 1
n training, RAM,
1. Timing / Entry Criteria
hardware, T&E,
software, HSI,
logistics, risk, 0 1 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic

a. Has a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) been successfully 1.a

programmatic completed?

b. Readiness for Critical Design Review (CDR) 1.b

training, RAM,
hardware, T&E,
software, risk,
logistics, HSI, 0 1 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic

CDR Page 1 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 1.b(1)
n hardware, T&E, (1) Is the program ready to conduct a CDR based upon CDR
software, risk, entry criteria vice a pre-determined schedule date?
logistics, HSI, Y
technology,
programmatic

(2) Have updates to the systems specification and functional 1.b(2)

logistics,
hardware, specification been completed?
programmatic

(3) Have product specifications for each hardware and 1.b(3)

software, logistics, software configuration item, along with supporting trade-off
hardware,
programmatic analyses and data been completed?

(4) Is a current program risk assessment available? 1.b(4)

risk, programmatic

(5) Was a Systems Engineering Plan (SEP - formerly 1.b(5)

logistics, Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP)) been
technology,
programmatic developed and implemented?

(6) Have Cost Analysis Requirements Description (CARD) 1.b(6)

logistics,
programmatic changes been completed?

(7) Has the Human Systems Integration (HSI) plan or 1.b(7)

HSI, logistics, applicable acquisition documentation that contain HSI
training,
programmatic information, been updated?

(8) Has logistics documentation Product Support Plan (PSP), 1.b(8)

Logistics Requirements and Funding Summary (LRFS),
logistics, RAM
Preliminary Maintenance Plan, etc.) been updated?

(9) Is the Software Design Document(s) (EMD) complete and 1.b(9)

software ready to be placed under configuration management?

(10) Is the Software Interface Design Document(s) (IDD) 1.b(10)

complete and ready to be placed under configuration
software
management?

(11) Are the preliminary test procedures for software 1.b(11)

T&E, software,
hardware integration and systems testing available for review?

c. Have all prior technical review Request for Action (RFAs) 1.c
technology,
programmatic been properly dispositioned and closed?

d. Have all prior logistics review RFAs been properly 1.d

logistics,
programmatic dispositioned and closed?

e. Is the program using an effective Integrated Digital 1.e

technology,
programmatic Environment (IDE) to store data?

CDR Page 2 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 2
n
2. Planning
T&E, RAM,
training, software,
HSI, logistics,
PQM, technology, 0 0 0 0 0
risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Was a chairperson, independent of the program, assigned? 2.a

technology,
programmatic

b. Did the review agenda address all applicable CDR review 2.b
programmatic elements listed in the SEP?

c. Was the technical review board properly staffed, and are the 2.c
appropriate technical disciplines participating in the review?
programmatic

d. Acquisition Strategy 2.d

logistics, HSI,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Was the Acquisition Strategy developed and 2.d(1)

logistics,
technology, documented?
programmatic

(2) Does the Acquisition Strategy address a plan to satisfy 2.d(2)

HSI requirements for each domain addressed in the
HSI,
Capability Development Document (CDD) / Capability
programmatic Production Document (CPD), including minimum standards
for those domains not specifically addressed in the CDD /
CPD?

e. Was the necessary System of Systems / Family of Systems 2.e

T&E,
programmatic, (SoS / FoS) testing addressed or planned?
interoperability

f. Was Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Baseline updated? 2.f

programmatic,
interoperability

g. Were the software metrics provided to the program office to 2.g

software, manage the software program provided to the software Subject

programmatic Matter Expert (SME)?

h. Net-Ready Key Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) 2.h

PQM,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Have the updated system NR-KPP and Information 2.h(1)

programmatic,
interoperability Support Plan (ISP) been certified or approved?

(2) Have the updated architecture products (Computer-Aided 2.h(2)

PQM, Design and Manufacturing (CADM) compliant) been
programmatic,
interoperability delivered?

i. Have the changes required to doctrine, organization, training, 2.i

HSI, training,
leadership, personnel and facilities (DOT_LPF) as a result of
programmatic, the fielding of this system been appropriately addressed in
interoperability order to advance joint warfighting capabilities?

CDR Page 3 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 2.j
n
j. Test and Evaluation (T&E) Planning
T&E, training,
logistics, HSI,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Are key Government / contractor interfaces identified for 2.j(1)

the T&E program? Does planning reflect Integrated Test
T&E, Team (ITT) organization and testing (contractor /
programmatic
Developmental Test (DT) / Operational Test (OT))?

(2) Is adequate staffing (required expertise and quantity of 2.j(2)

T&E, logistics, expertise for both the contractor and the Government)
programmatic available to execute the test schedule?

(3) Test Planning 2.j(3)

T&E, training,
logistics, HSI,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Has the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) been 2.j(3)(a)
updated to reflect the required detail for the CDR
T&E, logistics, timeframe? Does Section V of the TEMP address all
programmatic
required resources?

(b) Have developmental test plans been formulated in 2.j(3)(b)

T&E,
programmatic accordance with the TEMP?

(c) Does the T&E Strategy meet the TEMP requirements? 2.j(3)(c)
T&E,
programmatic

(d) Has detailed test planning been initiated? Are test plans 2.j(3)(d)
T&E,
programmatic for the first six months of test flights in a draft status?

(e) Are test requirements tied to verification requirements? 2.j(3)(e)

T&E, Is there a method to ensure traceability of test

programmatic requirements to the verification requirements?

(f) Does TEMP reflect Net-Centric Operations and Warfare 2.j(3)(f)

T&E,
programmatic, requirements?
interoperability

(g) Does TEMP address objectives and metrics to ensure 2.j(3)(g)

T&E, HSI, that human effectiveness will be assessed to consider
training,
programmatic human factors, training, survivability and habitability?

(4) Is there a plan for a deficiency documentation and 2.j(4)

T&E,
programmatic tracking system?

(5) Is the flight clearance process established to include 2.j(5)

T&E,
programmatic definitions of the levels of clearance authority?

(6) Have metrics been established to track the test program? 2.j(6)
T&E,
programmatic

CDR Page 4 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 2.j(7)
n
(7) How will the test processes, as detailed in the TEMP and
T&E,
the contractor's overarching T&E strategy, address the end-
programmatic, to-end testing of SoS / FoS distributed services? Have all
interoperability certification test requirements been identified?

(8) Have facilities / test resources (contractor and 2.j(8)

T&E, logistics,
programmatic Government) been defined and included in the planning?

(9) Is there user “buy-in” to the above test planning? Are 2.j(9)
T&E,
programmatic there provisions for user participation?

(10) Has OT been involved with all aspects of test planning? 2.j(10)
T&E,
programmatic Are OT requirements considered as a part of DT planning?

(11) Are training requirements documented for Development 2.j(11)

T&E, training, Test & Evaluation (DT&E) and Operational Test & Evaluation
logistics, HSI,
programmatic (OT&E)?

(12) Are system engineering requirements for the T&E 2.j(12)

T&E, program understood? Is testing for unique system

programmatic engineering included in the test plans?

(13) Will Government and contractor T&E facilities be 2.j(13)

T&E,
programmatic available to meet the schedule?

k. Quality Planning 2.k

PQM, risk, RAM,
T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Is the quality management system finalized and 2.k(1)

PQM, risk,
programmatic documented?

PQM, risk, (2) Are program plan updates required? 2.k(2)

programmatic

(3) Are gages and other measuring and test devices 2.k(3)
necessary to assure performance to technical requirements
PQM, risk, T&E, available or scheduled to be available when needed?
programmatic

PQM, risk, (4) Has the lead free control plan been updated? 2.k(4)
programmatic

(5) Have qualification testing plans to support program 2.k(5)

PQM, risk, T&E,
programmatic requirements been updated?

(6) What system is used for the collecting and tracking of the 2.k(6)

PQM, risk, cost related to quality and are these data available for
programmatic Government review?

(7) Is a Foreign Object Damage (FOD) prevention program in 2.k(7)

PQM, risk, RAM,
programmatic place?

CDR Page 5 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 3
n
3. Program schedule
hardware,
software, T&E,
logistics, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Updated program schedule with linked tasks. 3.a

software,
hardware,
logistics, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Does the program have an updated schedule with 3.a(1)

software, logistics, sufficient detail to support development, and are the tasks
risk, programmatic linked?

(2) Is the software schedule consistent with the detailed 3.a(2)

software,
hardware, design, or has the schedule been revised?
programmatic

(3) Has the software schedule been updated based upon 3.a(3)
actual measured project software development performance
software
and productivity to date?

(4) Has the software schedule changed since the beginning 3.a(4)
software,
hardware of the project?

hardware, (5) What were the causes of these changes? 3.a(5)

software

(6) What mitigating action has been taken to prevent their 3.a(6)
hardware,
software occurrence in the future?

(7) Were any problems that caused schedule slips identified 3.a(7)
as risks prior to their occurrence? If not why not? If yes, why
risk, programmatic
didn’t the associated mitigation plan succeed?

(8) Is allowance made in the schedule for upgrades of 3.a(8)

Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) and Government Off-The-
programmatic
Shelf (GOTS) equipment due to obsolescence?

b. Is the schedule built upon “bottom-up” task planning? 3.b

programmatic

c. Is the schedule reflective of available resources? 3.c

programmatic

d. Critical Path 3.d

software,
hardware, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Does the program schedule have an identified critical 3.d(1)

hardware, risk, path and is that critical path consistent with overall technical
programmatic risk?

(2) What are the components of the software on the project's 3.d(2)
software, risk,
programmatic critical path?

(3) If software is not currently on the project critical path, how 3.d(3)

software, risk, much must the software development slip before it is on the
programmatic critical path?

CDR Page 6 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 3.d(4)
n
(4) Are there any hardware (COTS, GOTS or project specific)
software, deliverables on the software development critical path?
hardware, risk,
programmatic

(5) Are there any software deliverables from outside sources 3.d(5)

software, risk, (COTS, GOTS) on the software development critical path?

programmatic

software, risk, e. What is the program status versus critical path? 3.e
programmatic

f. Does this program schedule show FoS / SoS impacts 3.f

hardware,
software, risk, (systems on the critical path for the program) for delivery of a
programmatic, capability?
interoperability

T&E, risk, g. Test and Evaluation (T&E) Schedule 3.g

programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

T&E, (1) Does the T&E program have a detailed test schedule? 3.g(1)
programmatic

T&E, (2) Are test interdependencies well understood? 3.g(2)

programmatic

(3) Is the current (flight) test schedule built upon actual test 3.g(3)
T&E,
programmatic point requirements and realistic completion rates?

(4) Is the current T&E schedule executable with respect to 3.g(4)

T&E, risk, timeframe and required resources (manpower, ranges,

programmatic facilities)?

CDR Page 7 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 4
n
4. Management metrics relevant to life cycle phase
HSI, PQM,
hardware, RAM,
software, EVM,
logistics, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Cost / Schedule / Performance / Key Performance 4.a

logistics, risk,
technology, Parameters (KPP) 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Is the latest revised estimate of each KPP in accordance 4.a(1)

logistics, risk,
technology, with the Acquisition Program Baseline?
programmatic

(2) Are the KPPs reflective of program risks and technical 4.a(2)
logistics, risk,
technology, results?
programmatic

b. Latest cost estimate 4.b

logistics,
hardware,
software, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic

(1) Is the cost estimate consistent with the technical risk of 4.b(1)
logistics,
hardware, risk, the program, the critical path plan and available resources?
technology,
programmatic

(2) Is the software cost consistent with the detailed design, or 4.b(2)
software, risk,
programmatic has it been revised?

(3) Has the software estimate been updated based upon 4.b(3)

software, actual measured project software development performance

programmatic and productivity to date?

(4) Has cost of acquiring, licensing and configuring COTS 4.b(4)

software,
hardware, and / or GOTS computer hardware and software been
logistics, considered?
programmatic

(5) What caused a change in the software cost since the 4.b(5)
software, risk,
programmatic beginning of the project, if any?

(6) What mitigating action has been taken to prevent future 4.b(6)
software, risk,
programmatic occurrences?

T&E, EVM, c. Test and Evaluation (T&E) - Cost 4.c

programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Based on latest cost estimate, is the T&E program 4.c(1)

T&E,
programmatic adequately funded?

T&E, (2) Can T&E costs be tracked to specific capabilities? 4.c(2)

programmatic

(3) Have metrics been established to track performance and 4.c(3)

T&E, EVM,
programmatic earned value?

d. Estimate of Production Costs 4.d

logistics, PQM,
programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

CDR Page 8 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 4.d(1)
n
(1) Is the estimate for production costs consistent with the
logistics, PQM,
programmatic detailed design as disclosed?

(2) Are all elements of production cost addressed? 4.d(2)

logistics, PQM,
programmatic

e. Estimate of Operations and Support (O&S) Costs 4.e

software,
hardware,
logistics, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Is the estimate for O&S costs consistent with the detailed 4.e(1)
software, logistics,
programmatic design as disclosed?

(2) Are all elements of O&S cost addressed? 4.e(2)

software, logistics,
programmatic

(2) Have COTS and / or GOTS computer hardware and 4.e(3)

software,
hardware, software obsolescence and upgrade impacts been
logistics,
programmatic
considered as part of the estimate?

f. Are logistics metrics identified in the Acquisition Program 4.f

logistics,
programmatic Baseline?

g. Have supportability analysis products from the system 4.g

logistics, integration work effort been made available to the cognizant
programmatic
CDR participants prior to the review?

h. Are the current logistics documents available for review 4.h

logistics, RAM,
programmatic (PSP, LRFS, Preliminary Maintenance Plan)?

i. Earned Value Management (EVM) 4.i

hardware, EVM,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

EVM, (1) Are the EVM data up-to-date? 4.i(1)

programmatic

(2) Is the EVM baseline being used as a program execution 4.i(2)

EVM,
programmatic tool (i.e. by management and at the working level)?

(3) Are the work packages based on earned value vice level 4.i(3)
EVM,
programmatic of effort?

(4) Is the EVM data consistent with known technical risks and 4.i(4)
hardware, EVM,
technology, risk, challenges in the program?
programmatic

(5) Is the EVM data being used to adjust program resources 4.i(5)
risk, EVM,
hardware, to address risk issues?
programmatic

(6) Have the metrics to track EVM been clearly articulated 4.i(6)

EVM, with sufficient fidelity to understand the status of the product

programmatic development?

j. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) review 4.j

logistics,
hardware, risk,
software, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic

CDR Page 9 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 4.j(1)
n hardware, risk, (1) Is the WBS consistent with the technical risks of the
software, HSI, program?
programmatic

(2) Is the WBS broken down to an appropriately detailed level 4.j(2)

hardware, risk,
logistics, HSI, to address all technical tasks?
technology,
programmatic

(3) Are all Configuration Items (CIs) (including software), as 4.j(3)

software,
hardware, identified in the detailed design, addressed in the WBS?
logistics,
programmatic

(4) Are the requirements tracked, traced, and modeled using 4.j(4)
logistics,
programmatic an automated tool?

k. Software metrics 4.k

EVM, risk,
software, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Has a software metrics program been implemented by 4.k(1)

software,
programmatic both the developer and the Government acquisition office?

(2) Are adequate software metrics in place and being used to 4.k(2)
software,
programmatic manage the software effort?

(3) Do the metrics indicate status versus plan? 4.k(3)

risk, software,
programmatic

(4) What level of risk does the metrics indicate? 4.k(4)

risk, software,
programmatic

(5) Is the software staffing adequate for the magnitude / 4.k(5)

risk, software,
programmatic complexity of the software and the level of software risk?

(6) Have the cost and schedule estimates been updated 4.k(6)

software, based on any changes in software size due to updates from

programmatic detailed design completion?

(7) Are computer resource utilization metrics or Technical 4.k(7)

Performance Measures (TPM) known and allocated to
software, individual processors' Input / Output (IO), Random-Access
programmatic Memory, Read-Only Memory (ROM) and other storage
media?

(8) Is there sufficient reserve and have resource utilization 4.k(8)

software,
programmatic requirements for each component been met?

(9) Are metrics used to track and manage the software 4.k(9)

risk, software, requirements changes, deletions and additions (software

programmatic requirements volatility), and is the level acceptable?

CDR Page 10 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o
n
Note: If the total system or software requirements change
rate (additions / modifications / deletions) is greater than
2% per month since the end of software requirements
risk, software, analysis phase or the System Functional Review (SFR) for
programmatic
software, possible requirements management problems
with likely cost and schedule impacts are indicated.

(10) Are there metrics and traceability in place to verify all of 4.k(10)

hardware, T&E,
the system and software requirements have been
software, EVM, implemented in the detailed design, and will be coded and
programmatic tested in subsequent phases?

Note: If EVM is identified as the metric for managing and

ensuring that software requirements are being
implemented in accordance with the project cost and
hardware,
software, EVM, schedule plan, allocation of earned value must be tied
programmatic directly to the correct implementation of software
requirements.

(11) Are metrics used to insure that quality is designed and 4.k(11)
software, EVM,
programmatic built into the software rather than attempting to test it in?

(12) What metrics have been used to track quality during the 4.k(12)
software, EVM,
programmatic software requirements and software design phase?

(13) What quality metrics will be used during the coding and 4.k(13)
EVM, T&E,
software, test phases?
programmatic

(14) Are appropriate metrics in place to allow the tracking, 4.k(14)

EVM, risk,
software, management, and mitigation of significant software risks?
programmatic

(15) For ACAT IA, IC, ID with a software development effort 4.k(15)
exceeding $25M (FY02 dollars), have Software Resource
software, EVM, Data Reports (SRDR) been submitted in accordance with
programmatic Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 5000.2 dated 12
May 03 and DoD 5000.4-M-2?

l. Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase 4.l

HSI, RAM,
logistics, T&E,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Key logistics criteria during EMD 4.l(1)

HSI, RAM,
logistics, T&E,
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Does the program comply with the collection, analysis, 4.l(1)(a)
and evaluation of system performance and maintenance
performance data to determine the need for and prescribe
logistics, RAM,
changes to the system configuration, maintenance support
programmatic structure, and maintenance resource requirements?
Utilization of on-board (embedded) monitoring sensors,
diagnostics, and prognostics are integral to this process.

CDR Page 11 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 4.l(1)(b)
n
(b) Does the iterative refinement of logistics support
logistics, considerations correspond with the evolutionary acquisition
programmatic strategy (when employed)?

(c) Have Product Support Integrator (PSI), potential 4.l(1)(c)

logistics, support providers (public and private), and potential
programmatic,
interoperability partnering opportunities been identified?

(d) Has an assessment been made of the depot-level 4.l(1)(d)

maintenance core capability and have workloads required
HSI, logistics
to sustain those capabilities been identified?

(e) Has the development of Performance Based Logistics 4.l(1)(e)

(PBL) Business Case Analysis (BCA) been developed to
logistics, determine the relative cost versus benefits of different
programmatic
support strategies?

(f) Has the development of PBL BCA been developed to 4.l(1)(f)

logistics, determine the impact and value of performance, cost,

programmatic schedule, sustainment trade-offs?

(g) Has the development of PBL BCA been developed to 4.l(1)(g)

logistics, determine data required to support and justify the PBL

programmatic strategy?

(h) Has the development of PBL BCA been developed to 4.l(1)(h)

determine the PSI performance outcomes and
logistics, requirements, e.g. mission readiness, logistics footprint,
programmatic
response times, etc?

(i) Has an auditable depot-level maintenance core 4.l(1)(i)

logistics, RAM, capability and workload assessment been completed? (to

programmatic be completed bi-annually)

(j) As required by statute, has an annual determination of 4.l(1)(j)

HSI, RAM, the distribution of maintenance workloads been
logistics,
programmatic completed?

(k) Are there updated logistics criteria and parameters with 4.l(1)(k)
logistics the Acquisition Program Baseline (APB)?

(l) Has it been demonstrated that the system is affordable 4.l(1)(l)

logistics, throughout the life cycle, optimally funded, and properly

programmatic phased for rapid acquisition?

CDR Page 12 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 5
n
5. Program Staffing
HSI, PQM,
logistics, T&E,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

a. Is there a complete organizational structure shown, and is it 5.a

technology, risk, consistent with the technical challenges and risks of the
logistics, HSI,
programmatic program?

b. Are key Government / contractor interfaces identified and are 5.b

risk, HSI, logistics,
programmatic these consistent with program risks?

c. Is there confidence that all required flight clearance 5.c

HSI, T&E, performance monitors are involved, and do they concur with the
logistics,
programmatic detailed design?

d. Quality Staffing 5.d

PQM, risk, HSI 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Have their been any changes to the authority or reporting 5.d(1)
PQM, risk, HSI chain of quality personnel?

(2) Do quality staffing plans address the initial production 5.d(2)

PQM, risk, HSI program and the build up to full rate production?

(3) Have the responsibilities for quality efforts been updated? 5.d(3)
PQM, risk

CDR Page 13 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6
n
6. Process Review
training, RAM,
hardware, HSI,
PQM, software,
T&E, logistics, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Program management processes as detailed in the Program 6.a

PQM, T&E,
hardware, risk, Management Plan
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Are the program management processes that are in 6.a(1)

PQM, T&E,
hardware, risk, place adequate to address the technical challenges of the
technology, program and program risks?
programmatic

(2) Is there an updated Program Management Plan that is 6.a(2)

technology, risk,
programmatic reflective of the emergent technical issues and risks?

(3) Are there program management processes in place to 6.a(3)

PQM, T&E, properly manage the detailed design, prototype fabrication,
technology,
programmatic testing, and attendant technical emphasis areas?

(4) Is the program being managed to adjust resources to 6.a(4)

PQM, T&E,
hardware, address issues in the detailed design, prototype fabrication
technology, and testing?
programmatic

b. Configuration Management (CM) Plan 6.b

logistics,
hardware,
software, PQM,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

logistics, (1) Is the CM plan in place and up-to-date? 6.b(1)

programmatic

(2) Are CM decisions based on factors that best support 6.b(2)

implementation of performance-based strategies throughout
logistics
the product life cycle?

(3) Is the detailed design (each CI) documented and being 6.b(3)
hardware,
logistics, managed in accordance with the CM Plan?
programmatic

(4) Are requirements for the configuration identification, 6.b(4)

logistics, control, status accounting, deviations, engineering changes,

hardware, and verification / audit functions established for hardware,
software,
programmatic software, and product and technical data?

(5) Have the appropriate milestones for the functional, 6.b(5)

hardware, allocated, and product baselines been established and
logistics,
programmatic approved from development through disposal?

(6) Has nomenclature been established where appropriate? 6.b(6)

logistics,
hardware

(7) Are interfaces defined using interface control documents 6.b(7)

logistics,
hardware, (as applicable)?
programmatic,
interoperability

CDR Page 14 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.b(8)
n
(8) Have hardware and software requirements, product and
logistics, software, technical data specifications, and interface requirements
hardware,
programmatic specification been prepared and approved?

(9) Are physical and functional characteristics accurately 6.b(9)

logistics,
hardware, reflected in design documentation?
programmatic

(10) Has each computer software configuration item, along 6.b(10)

logistics, software, with its corresponding computer software components and

hardware computer software units, been identified?

(11) Has a software design document been written for each 6.b(11)
logistics, software computer software configuration item?

(12) Are the version, release, change status, media, and 6.b(12)

logistics, software, other identification details of each software deliverable

hardware known?

(13) Will the software be installed along with its serial 6.b(13)
logistics, software number?

(14) Has the COTS / Non-Developmental Item (NDI) form, 6.b(14)

logistics, fit, and function information been required and provided for
programmatic refresh?

(15) Are subcontractor CM requirements (including 6.b(15)

logistics information, data and metrics) established?

(16) Are CM processes and procedures (including change 6.b(16)

logistics initiation, evaluation, and disposition) established?

(17) Is an engineering release system utilized to control 6.b(17)

logistics, PQM,
technology change, manufacturing, and acceptance processes?

(18) Is a configuration control board established that includes 6.b(18)

logistics,
programmatic logistics representation?

(19) Is the configuration status accounting information 6.b(19)

maintained in a CM database? (may include such information
as the as-designed, as-built, as-delivered or as-modified
logistics,
hardware, configuration of the product as well as of any replaceable
programmatic components within the product along with the associated
product and technical data.)

(20) Has traceability of requirements from the top-level 6.b(20)

logistics, documentation through all subordinate levels been
hardware,
programmatic documented?

(21) Who manages the configuration database? 6.b(21)

logistics,
programmatic

(22) Is the CM plan current? 6.b(22)

logistics,
programmatic

CDR Page 15 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.b(23)
n
(23) What are the impacts and workarounds of multiple
logistics,
programmatic configurations?

(24) Are changes to the managed CI configurations 6.b(24)

controlled and tracked to higher level (System Specification
hardware, and CDD / CPD), and lower level (detailed design)
programmatic
documents?

c. Systems Engineering (SE) processes as detailed in the SEP 6.c

hardware,
logistics, T&E,
technology, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Is there a defined SE process? 6.c(1)

logistics, HSI,
technology,
programmatic

(2) Are the processes shared by the Government and 6.c(2)

logistics, HSI,
technology, contractor team?
programmatic

(3) Are the SE processes for design development and 6.c(3)

logistics, HSI,
technology, system trades in place and being used?
programmatic

(4) Are the planned technical reviews in place and properly 6.c(4)
logistics,
technology, placed (event driven vice schedule driven)?
programmatic

(5) Are the SE processes adequate to support the technical 6.c(5)

logistics,
hardware, requirements of the technical reviews?
technology,
programmatic

(6) Are the technical teams working against a defined 6.c(6)

logistics,
hardware, technical baseline?
technology,
programmatic

(7) Is the program using a SE automated tool (i.e. DOORS, 6.c(7)

logistics, CORE, SLATE etc.) to manage traceability of each CI?
technology,
programmatic

(8) Do the program test processes, as detailed in the TEMP 6.c(8)

T&E, logistics,
and the contractor's overarching T&E Strategy, appropriately
programmatic, address the end-to-end testing of SoS / FoS distributed
interoperability services?

(9) Have all certification test requirements been identified? 6.c(9)

T&E, logistics,
programmatic

d. Acquisition Logistics Support Management and Staffing 6.d

logistics,
hardware, T&E,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Are logistics parameters and tests included in the TEMP? 6.d(1)
T&E, logistics,
programmatic

CDR Page 16 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.d(2)
n
(2) Are Initial Operational Capability (IOC) / Full Operational
T&E, logistics, Capability (FOC) dates established and defined?
programmatic,
interoperability

(3) Are trade studies conducted on a continuous basis to 6.d(3)

logistics, ensure that performance and supportability goals are met?
technology,
programmatic

(4) With specific consideration of performance requirements, 6.d(4)

logistics,
hardware, do trade studies consider alternate operating and support
technology, concepts?
programmatic

(5) Is logistics support included as a part of the life cycle 6.d(5)

logistics,
technology, system engineering approach to supportability, including
programmatic, information interoperability requirements?
interoperability

e. Risk Management processes as detailed in the Risk 6.e

risk, PQM,
logistics, Management Plan 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Is there a defined risk management process? 6.e(1)

risk, logistics,
programmatic

(2) Is the Risk Management Plan up to date and being 6.e(2)

risk, logistics,
programmatic used?

(3) Is the risk management process shared by the 6.e(3)

risk, PQM,
programmatic Government and contractor team?

(4) Does the risk management process properly track all risks 6.e(4)
on a continuous basis and provide for update of the
risk, programmatic
mitigation approaches?

(5) Are mitigation approaches in place for all “yellow” and 6.e(5)
risk, programmatic “red” risks and are risk mitigations resourced?

(6) Does the risk management process provide for risk 6.e(6)

risk, logistics, updates to support the technical reviews and program

programmatic management (acquisition) reviews?

(7) Is the system’s safety risk mitigation plan being managed 6.e(7)
risk, programmatic by the program Risk Management Board?

(8) How are risks associated with FoS / SoS requirements 6.e(8)
being mitigated using the risk mitigation process to include
risk, programmatic
risks external to the program?

f. Logistics Budgeting and Funding 6.f

logistics, risk,
programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Has the program office prepared a LRFS or equivalent 6.f(1)

logistics, risk,
programmatic document?

(a) Has an LRFS or similar type document been 6.f(1)(a)

logistics,
programmatic established and kept updated?

CDR Page 17 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.f(1)(b)
n
(b) Is there adequate documentation to support the
logistics,
programmatic requirements identified in the LRFS?

(c) Are logistics funding requirements developed using 6.f(1)(c)

risk, logistics, Cost As an Independent Variable (CAIV), accepted cost

programmatic estimating methods, and risk management principles?

(d) Have life cycle cost estimates, including cost reduction 6.f(1)(d)

logistics, efforts, been developed and validated to optimize total

programmatic ownership of costs and schedules, including end of life?

(e) Does the LRFS support the budgetary requirements of 6.f(1)(e)

logistics,
programmatic the logistics support plan?

(f) Do the funding requirements in the LRFS coincide with 6.f(1)(f)

logistics, the support requirements in the PSP and other planning

programmatic documents?

(2) Has the LRFS been staffed and approved? 6.f(2)

logistics, HSI,
programmatic

(a) Are funding requirements appropriately time-phased? 6.f(2)(a)

logistics,
programmatic

(b) Are funding requirements identified in the Acquisition 6.f(2)(b)

logistics,
programmatic Program Baseline?

(c) Are program logistics management personnel 6.f(2)(c)

conversant with methodologies used to develop cost
logistics, HSI
estimates?

g. Test processes as detailed in the TEMP and the contractor's 6.g

overarching T&E Strategy.
T&E, logistics
See Sections 2.j(7) through 2.j(13)

h. Production processes (ISO 9000, etc.) 6.h

logistics,
hardware, PQM,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Have production processes been considered in the 6.h(1)

PQM, hardware,
programmatic detailed design?

(2) Have production requirements been properly captured 6.h(2)

PQM, risk,
hardware, and addressed in the risk assessment?
programmatic

(3) Have long-lead items been identified and are production 6.h(3)
PQM, hardware,
programmatic processes sufficiently mature for this phase of the program?

(4) Where applicable, have Unique Identification (UID) 6.h(4)

PQM, hardware,
logistics, requirements been incorporated? (e.g., MIL-STD-130)
technology,
programmatic

CDR Page 18 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.h(5)
n
(5) Have the requirements of ISO 9001 regarding Product
PQM, risk, Realization been recognized by the contractor and are they
hardware,
technology being complied with?

i. Automated Information Technology (AIT) 6.i

training,
hardware,
logistics, RAM,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) 6.i(1)

training, logistics,
RAM, technology,
programmatic

(a) Does the program manager have an implementation 6.i(1)(a)

plan and strategy for storage and shipment with regard to
logistics, RFID on equipment containers? (Applies to new and
programmatic
mature acquisition programs, N/A for sundown programs.)

(b) Have an analysis and site survey(s) (if applicable) been 6.i(1)(b)

logistics, conducted to determine the level of effort, period of

programmatic implementation, and cost of RFID implementation?

(c) Has the appropriate amount of funding required to 6.i(1)(c)

logistics, implement RFID implementation been identified, budgeted,

programmatic allocated, and added to the LRFS?

(d) Do the applicable industrial partners have a plan for 6.i(1)(d)

logistics,
programmatic RFID implementation?

(e) Have publications, drawings, maintenance plans, 6.i(1)(e)

logistics, training,
RAM training regimens, etc. been updated as appropriate?

(2) Unique Identification (UID) 6.i(2)

training, logistics,
hardware, RAM,
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Does the program manager have an implementation 6.i(2)(a)

plan and strategy developed with regard to defining the
logistics,
hardware, specified format for UID parts marking and labeling as
technology, prescribed by the applicable Defense Federal Acquisition
programmatic
Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause?

(b) Has a UID implementation plan been drafted as per 6.i(2)(b)

logistics, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) policy and has it
hardware,
programmatic been submitted, approved, and updated?

(c) Does the plan comply with applicable OSD guidance 6.i(2)(c)
with regard to whether or not UID is being applied to items
logistics, equal to or greater than $5,000, serially managed, mission
programmatic,
interoperability
essential, controlled inventory, or requiring permanent
identification?

CDR Page 19 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.i(2)(d)
n
(d) Has an analysis been conducted to ascertain the level
logistics, of effort required, period of implementation, and cost of
programmatic UID implementation?

(e) Has the appropriate amount of funding required to 6.i(2)(e)

logistics, implement UID (on applicable components and items)

programmatic been identified, budgeted, allocated, and added to the
LRFS?
(f) Do the applicable industrial partners have a plan for UID 6.i(2)(f)
logistics,
programmatic implementation?

(g) Have publications, drawings, maintenance plans, and 6.i(2)(g)

logistics, training
RAM, technology training regimens been updated for UID?

j. Have the lessons learned by other programs been utilized to 6.j

risk, programmatic reduce risk?

k. Software 6.k
training, RAM,
software, HSI,
hardware, risk,
logistics, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Is the software development lifecycle appropriate to the 6.k(1)

software, risk development?

(2) Does the software lifecycle being used contribute to 6.k(2)

software, risk reducing overall software development risk?

(3) Are software requirements allocated to COTS, GOTS and 6.k(3)

training, software,
T&E, reused software appropriately?
programmatic

(a) Does the COTS, GOTS and / or reused software’s 6.k(3)(a)

implementation meet the software requirements allocated
software
to it?

(b) Is the development team familiar with or trained in the 6.k(3)(b)

use of the COTS, GOTS or reused software? If not, is
software, training documentation readily available? Is training readily
available and has it been scheduled and budgeted for?

(c) Is the COTS, GOTS or reused software fully tested and 6.k(3)(c)
reliable? If not, have adequate schedule and resources
software, T&E, been included to test and rework it? If not, why is it being
programmatic
used?

(4) If COTS or GOTS computer hardware and / or software is 6.k(4)

software, being used, have COTS and / or GOTS obsolescence issues
hardware, risk,
programmatic been considered?

(a) Has the long term viability of the COTS and / or GOTS 6.k(4)(a)

software, risk, product provider been considered for the program life
programmatic cycle?

CDR Page 20 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.k(4)(b)
n
(b) Has the likely impact of updating a component of COTS
software, and / or GOTS computer hardware or software been
hardware,
technology,
considered in respect to how it may force other COTS
programmatic and / or GOTS upgrades?

(c) Has the impact on the project's custom software of 6.k(4)(c)

software, COTS and / or GOTS computer hardware or software
hardware, risk,
programmatic upgrades been considered?

(d) Are the impacts of COTS and / or GOTS software and 6.k(4)(d)

software, computer hardware obsolescence and upgrades on the

hardware, risk, software development and integration environment
programmatic considered?

(5) Are facilities and resources available or in development to 6.k(5)

logistics,
hardware, HSI, support software integration testing, formal qualification
software, T&E,
programmatic, testing, systems testing, SoS / FoS testing, DT, and OT?
interoperability

(a) Have adequate hardware, software, personnel, and 6.k(5)(a)

logistics,
hardware, HSI, spares been allocated to both laboratory, ground and flight
software, T&E, testing to achieve the program schedule?
programmatic

(b) Does the program place an excessive and/or 6.k(5)(b)

logistics, unreasonable emphasis on ground, flight, or laboratory
hardware,
software, T&E testing?

(c) Is the appropriate and most cost effective means of 6.k(5)(c)

logistics,
hardware, testing utilized for different testing phases?
software, T&E

(d) If the systems and software integration laboratory 6.k(5)(d)

logistics,
resources are planned to be used for spares for flight or
hardware, ground testing, has the impact on the testing schedule of
software, T&E the laboratory(s) being unavailable been considered?

(e) Are there any test environment resource limitations that 6.k(5)(e)
logistics,
hardware, risk, may result in a bottleneck or chokepoint in testing?
software, T&E,
programmatic

(f) What actions have been taken to mitigate these 6.k(5)(f)

logistics,
hardware, risk, bottlenecks or chokepoints?
software, T&E

(g) Is the test environment representative of the 6.k(5)(g)

logistics,
hardware,
operational environment?
software, T&E,
programmatic,
interoperability

(h) Are adequate resources and schedule provided for the 6.k(5)(h)

logistics,
development and or modification of any special purpose
hardware, test, simulation and data analysis software for use during
software, T&E the software development provided?

(6) Is the software developer performing at a Software- 6.k(6)

software, risk, Capability Maturity Model (SW-CMM) or Capability Maturity

programmatic Model Integration (CMMI) level III?

CDR Page 21 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 6.k(6)(a)
n
(a) What risk mitigation action is being taken to reduce the
increased risk of cost, schedule and quality deficiencies, if
software, risk the software developer is performing below SW-CMM or
CMMI Level III?

(b) What corrective action is being taken, if the software 6.k(6)(b)

software, risk, developer is performing below the SW-CMM or CMMI

programmatic Level they proposed during source selection?

(7) What software data rights have been procured by the 6.k(7)
Government and are they consistent with the Government's
software, RAM,
programmatic
plans for maintenance and upgrade of the software over its
life cycle?

Note: The DFARs clauses for Data Rights are 252-227-

7013 / 7014 / 7015. In some contracts the FAR clauses
52-227-7013 / 7014 / 7015 may have been used. If there is
any doubt about what level of data rights have been
procured or if data rights procured are consistent with the
software, RAM, life cycle support plans for the product, it is essential that a
programmatic patent attorney become involved in order to clarify the
situation. The different types of data rights covered in the
DFARS are: Unlimited, Government Purpose and Limited.

(8) Is physical security, Information Assurance (IA), and 6.k(8)

software security implementation consistent with the security
software, RAM, level of the software and any data or crypto stored and
programmatic managed by the software both during development and
during operational use?

(9) Are peer reviews of the software requirements and 6.k(9)

software detailed design part of exit criteria for determining if
software,
programmatic
they are complete and for placing them under configuration
control?

(10) Have software quality criteria for entrance into OT been 6.k(10)
software, T&E,
programmatic identified?

(11) Does the software detailed design and project plan 6.k(11)
provide for the implementation of any DoD software
architecture requirements and or standards such as DII COE,
software, JTA, STANAG 4404 Safety Design Requirements and
programmatic, Guidelines for Munition Related Safety Critical Computing
interoperability
Systems, STANAG 4586 Standard Interfaces of UAV Control
System (UCS) for NATO UAV Interoperability, etc.?

CDR Page 22 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7
n
7. Product Support
training, RAM,
hardware, risk,
software, T&E,
PQM, logistics, 0 0 0 0 0
HSI, technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Product Support Manager life cycle Logistics 7.a

HSI, T&E,
logistics, RAM,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Performance Requirements 7.a(1)

logistics, RAM,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) What are the warfighter needs from the support system 7.a(1)(a)
logistics,
programmatic to meet sustained operational requirements?

(b) Do warfighter needs address reduced footprint and total 7.a(1)(b)

logistics, ownership costs as well as improved deployability and

interoperability sustainability?

(c) Are warfighter needs reflected in performance 7.a(1)(c)

logistics, agreements, capabilities documents, and specification
programmatic,
interoperability documents?

(d) Are performance measures and metrics (objectives and 7.a(1)(d)

thresholds) specified to meet user oriented performance
requirements (e.g., reliability, operational availability,
logistics, RAM, mission capable rate, customer wait time, cycle time,
programmatic
footprint, cost / operating cycle, life cycle cost), and the
target price for the set level of performance?

(e) Are operating and support objectives defined where 7.a(1)(e)

logistics, feasible considering performance histories of prior systems

programmatic of similar capabilities?

(f) Do requirements improve on logistics footprint 7.a(1)(f)

logistics, reductions, limitations and deployment requirements

programmatic compared to prior or similar systems?

(g) How do the requirements address the need to reduce 7.a(1)(g)

logistics,
programmatic multiple configurations?

(h) Are performance agreements and warfighter 7.a(1)(h)

logistics, requirements measurable and aligned with capabilities

programmatic documents?

(2) Key Logistics Considerations 7.a(2)

T&E, HSI,
logistics, RAM,
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Is discrete identification of the taxonomy and metrics 7.a(2)(a)

logistics driving performance-based outcomes provided?

CDR Page 23 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.a(2)(b)
n
(b) Has a detailed assessment of the requirements for the
system to operate successfully in the mission operational
logistics, environment and the necessary support requirements to
programmatic
achieve that objective been provided?

(c) Have the logistics reliability targets and the 7.a(2)(c)

corresponding sustainment infrastructure necessary to
logistics, RAM, ensure achievement of the reliability objectives been
interoperability provided, given the operational environment and
combatant commander availability requirements?

(d) Has comprehensive identification of projected 7.a(2)(d)

maintenance strategy, including diagnostics, prognostics,
logistics, RAM maintenance duration targets, and similar measures been
provided?

(e) Have manpower and personnel requirements, both 7.a(2)(e)

logistics, HSI organic and contractor sourced been determined?

(f) Are Life Cycle Cost Estimate (LCCEs) continually 7.a(2)(f)

programmatic refined?

(g) Will support-related performance and acceptance 7.a(2)(g)

criteria be demonstrated during planned testing and
logistics, T&E
through modeling and simulation?

(h) Will logistics support considerations be included in CDR 7.a(2)(h)

to encompass life cycle costs, and characteristics such as
logistics, T&E, openness of design, upgradeability, modularity, testability,
technology
and commercial technology insertion?

(i) Are there plans for verification of support-related design 7.a(2)(i)

characteristics and product support strategy and
logistics
infrastructure?

(j) Have potential organic depot-level sources of 7.a(2)(j)

logistics, RAM maintenance been identified?

(k) Has the PBL product support concept been updated to 7.a(2)(k)

logistics, include development of warfighter and support provider

programmatic agreements?

(3) Have the support strategy, sustainment funding 7.a(3)

logistics, T&E, requirements, key logistics parameters, and logistics testing

programmatic criteria been updated?

(4) Are roles and responsibilities of the program logistician to 7.a(4)

meet these requirements throughout the life cycle shown by
logistics
life cycle phase?

(5) Product Support Manager Responsibilities 7.a(5)

logistics, T&E,
interoperability

CDR Page 24 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.a(5)(a)
n
(a) Has acceptable performance in development, T&E, and
operational assessment been described to include
logistics, T&E, acceptable interoperability and acceptable operational
interoperability
supportability?

(b) Have the critical aspects of supportability through 7.a(5)(b)

application of the Supportability Operational Effectiveness
logistics
(SOE) model been included in the design?

(c) Has the initial framework and options development for 7.a(5)(c)
the long-term performance-based support strategy been
logistics
updated?

b. Performance Based Logistics (PBL) 7.b

hardware, RAM,
logistics, PQM,
training, T&E,
technology, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Does the PBL Strategy 7.b(1)

logistics,
technology

(a) Procure the desired outcomes? 7.b(1)(a)

logistics

(b) Consider the logistics footprint? 7.b(1)(b)

logistics

(c) Provide exit clauses sufficient to ensure re- 7.b(1)(c)

establishment of organic or commercial support capability?
logistics

logistics, (d) Include technical requirements as appropriate? 7.b(1)(d)

technology

(e) Provide support transparent to the fleet? 7.b(1)(e)

logistics

(2) Is the PBL contract agreement structured to provide cost 7.b(2)

effective performance outcomes consistent with top-level
logistics, RAM, metrics (e.g. Operational Availability, Operational Reliability,
programmatic Cost per Unit Usage, Logistics Footprint, and Logistics
Response Time)?

(3) PBL Business Case Analysis (BCA): 7.b(3)

logistics,
programmatic

(a) Is the BCA used to support individual PBL decisions? 7.b(3)(a)

logistics

(b) Does the BCA include the estimated costs and describe 7.b(3)(b)
the benefits between alternative product support strategies
logistics, RAM (e.g., buying a predetermined level of availability to meet
warfighter’s objectives)?

(c) Are the BCA processes used validated? 7.b(3)(c)

logistics

(d) Are reviews scheduled in time to support programmatic 7.b(3)(d)

logistics,
programmatic reviews?

CDR Page 25 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.b(3)(e)
n logistics
(e) Does the BCA support product support decision?

(4) Are the PBL product support provider(s) identified? Are 7.b(4)
logistics agreements finalized to include the following considerations:

(a) Is the BCA long term and does it include the 7.b(4)(a)
appropriate items discussed above for PBL management
logistics
planning? (BCAs are usually long term)

(b) Does the BCA identify all stakeholder roles and 7.b(4)(b)
logistics responsibilities?

(c) Does the BCA identify sources and data to collect and 7.b(4)(c)
logistics use?

(d) Does the BCA identify review and reporting 7.b(4)(d)

logistics requirements and dispute resolution?

(e) Are BCAs used to support individual PBL decisions 7.b(4)(e)

logistics made between alternatives?

(5) Is public-private partnering optimized? 7.b(5)

logistics,
programmatic

(6) Are systems established for data collection and for 7.b(6)
logistics assessment of performance metrics?

(7) Has potential Foreign Military Sales (FMS) participation 7.b(7)

logistics,
programmatic been considered?

(8) Has the contract Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) / 7.b(8)

logistics,
programmatic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) been awarded?

(9) Is the PBL performance continuously assessed? 7.b(9)

logistics

(10) Has a data system to track PBL metrics been 7.b(10)

logistics implemented?

(11) Do the supportability analyses with the associated BCA 7.b(11)

assess the sparing approach (e.g., PBL or legacy support
logistics
posture)?

(12) Have the PBL contractors been provided with clearance 7.b(12)
and access verification system for electronic reporting of
logistics
requisitions and asset status?

(13) Has the delivery timeline for shipment been identified? 7.b(13)
logistics

(14) Has PBL been considered as a product support 7.b(14)

logistics, training, strategy?
technology,
programmatic

(a) Is PSI PBL performance monitored / managed? 7.b(14)(a)

logistics

CDR Page 26 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.b(14)(b)
n
(b) Has the transition of the program's legacy systems and
logistics, their existing support structures to the PBL approach
programmatic progressed as planned?

(c) Does the PBL Performance Based Agreement (PBA) 7.b(14)(c)

logistics,
programmatic reflect the Warfighter requirements and associated KPP?

(d) Does the PBL contract include exit criteria should 7.b(14)(d)
scenarios arise that result in cessation of the PBL
logistics, training, contract? Exit criteria may include drawings, technical data,
technology,
programmatic
Acceptance Test Procedure (ATPs), support equipment,
training, etc.

(e) Will PBL Supportability BCAs continue throughout the 7.b(14)(e)

life cycle process with oversight to ensure reassessment at
logistics
appropriate supportability trigger points?

(15) Has a PBL strategy been developed? 7.b(15)

logistics,
programmatic

(16) Logistics Requirements and Funding - Are the funding 7.b(16)

shortfalls to the PBL requirements and impacts identified,
logistics, prioritized, fully documented and addressed to the program
programmatic
manager and resource sponsor?

(17) Has an Integrated Product Team (IPT) been formed to 7.b(17)

logistics,
programmatic evaluate the PBL candidate?

(18) Have all stakeholders been identified and invited as IPT 7.b(18)

logistics, participants to include Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and

programmatic FMS participants?

(19) Have the PBL strategy and its implementation been 7.b(19)
structured to continuously reduce the demand for logistics
support? (For example, continuous improvement of weapon
logistics,
system supportability and reduction in operating and support
programmatic costs and reductions in logistics demand, improvement in
logistics support system efficiency, and minimization required
resources (including time).)

(a) Does the PBL strategy identify the desired outcome? 7.b(19)(a)
logistics,
programmatic

(b) Will the PBL contract be structured to provide 7.b(19)(b)

logistics,
programmatic performance incentives?

(c) Are performance metrics clearly defined and 7.b(19)(c)

logistics, understood, using the highest level the metric provider can
programmatic support?

(d) Do the PBL strategy and its implementation consider 7.b(19)(d)

logistics,
programmatic reduction of the logistics footprint?

CDR Page 27 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.b(19)(e)
n
(e) Are exit clauses in the PBL contract sufficient to re-
logistics,
programmatic establish organic or commercial support capability?

(f) Are technical (data) requirements current and sufficient 7.b(19)(f)

under the exit clause of the contract (i.e., does the
logistics Government purchase the data or simply access the
data)?

(g) Is the support strategy transparent to the user? 7.b(19)(g)

logistics

(h) Have the PBL strategy and its implementation been 7.b(19)(h)
reviewed for impacts to Integrated Logistics Support (ILS)
logistics
elements?

(20) Data Package 7.b(20)

logistics,
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) What data are Government owned? In PBL 7.b(20)(a)

environment, ensure life-of-program Government access to
logistics, (vice ownership of) data is addressed, including provisions
programmatic,
interoperability
for transfer of data to Government or other support agents
at contract exit.

(21) Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material 7.b(21)

training, RAM,
hardware, HSI,
Shortages (DMSMS) and Obsolescence
logistics, T&E,
technology,
programmatic

(a) Has the PBL addressed a comprehensive 7.b(21)(a)

logistics,
programmatic Obsolescence and DMSMS Plan?

(b) Are system thresholds for Reliability, Availability, and 7.b(21)(b)

logistics, RAM Maintainability (RAM) being achieved in the fleet?

(c) Have logistics problems been identified using RMA data 7.b(21)(c)
logistics,
programmatic and has a POA&M been developed for corrective actions?

(d) Are design review requirements including supportability 7.b(21)(d)

flowed to design engineering from in-service data?
logistics

(e) Do the technical reviews include an assessment of 7.b(21)(e)

logistics,
technology system supportability requirements?

(f) Are readiness reviews performed periodically throughout 7.b(21)(f)

the life cycle and do they include supportability factors?
logistics

(g) Specifies the type of repair (e.g., inspect or repair as 7.b(21)(g)

training, RAM,
logistics, HSI, necessary, disposal or overhaul).
programmatic

(I) If this is a commercial depot, is the contract awarded? 7.b(21)(g)(I)

logistics,
programmatic

CDR Page 28 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o
n
(II) When will the depot manager certify the depot for 7.b(21)(g)(II)
logistics,
programmatic support of the system?

(III) When will all organic depot personnel be trained and 7.b(21)(g)(III)

training, RAM, all required equipment, tools, etc., be in place to perform

logistics, HSI depot maintenance?

(h) Have types and quantity of support equipment for each 7.b(21)(h)
logistics location been established?

(i) Does provisioning documentation identify tools and test 7.b(21)(i)

T&E, RAM,
logistics equipment by task function and maintenance level?

(j) Does provisioning documentation identify the category 7.b(21)(j)

codes (e.g., source, maintenance and recoverability codes)
logistics, T&E
are identified for support equipment?

(k) Does provisioning documentation identify the 7.b(21)(k)

manufacturer’s part numbers, nomenclatures, descriptions,
logistics, T&E estimated prices and recommended support equipment
quantities?

(l) Have the Test Program Sets (TPSs) and associated 7.b(21)(l)
logistics, T&E documentation been evaluated and verified?

(m) Will the TPSs used at organizational (O-) and 7.b(21)(m)

logistics, T&E intermediate (I-) level be available at IOC and FOC?

(n) Have verified TPSs been duplicated and will they be 7.b(21)(n)
logistics, T&E available to the operational sites in time for IOC and FOC?

(o) Have installation control drawings been delivered? 7.b(21)(o)

logistics

(p) Has availability of support equipment and tools at O- 7.b(21)(p)

training, logistics,
RAM and I-level sites and training schools been verified?

(q) Have all necessary changes to shipboard spaces been 7.b(21)(q)

made to accommodate the installation and storage of the
logistics
support equipment?

(r) Is the provisioning technical documentation being 7.b(21)(r)

procured adequate to support end items that have parts
hardware, subject to failure or replacement and require maintenance
programmatic
at any level?

(22) Are the program's legacy systems and support 7.b(22)

structures planned for PBL establishment and
logistics implementation, to include using the PSI to facilitate
transition?

(23) Is public-private partnership being considered? 7.b(23)

logistics,
hardware

CDR Page 29 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.b(24)
n
(24) Are contract clauses sufficient to meet surge
logistics, requirements and re-establishment of organic or commercial
hardware support capability?

(25) What provisions have been made for the identification, 7.b(25)

hardware, change control, quality, sourcing, management / oversight,

logistics, PQM and disposal of critical safety items?

c. Product Support Management 7.c

logistics, risk,
hardware, T&E,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Has the PSP been updated to reflect the maintenance 7.c(1)

logistics,
and support concepts at the system and major hardware
hardware, configuration item (Weapons Replacement Assembly (WRA)
interoperability and Shop Replacement Assembly (SRA)) levels?

(a) How does logistics planning support interoperability 7.c(1)(a)

logistics, requirements and data services provided by other

interoperability programs?

(b) Have alternative logistics concepts been adequately 7.c(1)(b)

considered and preliminary cost-benefit trades conducted
logistics
to justify the product support strategy in the PSP?

(c) Does the PSP reflect source provider performance 7.c(1)(c)

agreements pertaining to logistics (if any)? At minimum,
logistics reviews and comments concerning maintenance planning
and support concepts should be appropriately considered.

(2) Does Supportability IPT have user and other appropriate 7.c(2)
logistics,
programmatic representation?

(3) Is a market analysis conducted to scope available 7.c(3)

systems and product support capabilities (public and private)
logistics and to define opportunities for achieving support objectives
through design and product support strategies?

(4) Are support-related performance and acceptance criteria 7.c(4)

developed to be demonstrated during planned testing or
logistics, T&E
modeling and simulation?

(5) Is the PBL strategy being reviewed to evaluate best value 7.c(5)
and performance options against cost and performance
logistics
parameters?

(6) Do logistics provider agreements and contracts contain 7.c(6)

sufficient flexibility to meet surge requirements and to re-
logistics, establish organic or commercial support capability as
programmatic
necessary?

(7) Have logistics support program risks and mitigation plans 7.c(7)
logistics, risk been identified and assessed?

CDR Page 30 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.c(8)
n
(8) Has the user's logistics support summary been reviewed
logistics and coordinated with the user?

d. Product Support Budgeting and Funding 7.d

logistics, risk,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Are the correct appropriations identified for each logistics 7.d(1)
requirement? Have appropriate decisions been made
logistics regarding the type of funds used for procurement of PBL
resources?

(2) Are logistics funding shortfalls and impacts identified, 7.d(2)

logistics, prioritized, fully documented, and addressed to the program

programmatic manager and resource sponsor?

(3) Are the impacts of funding shortfalls understood and 7.d(3)

logistics, risk plans in place to mitigate risk?

(4) Has logistics planning identified impacts of interoperability 7.d(4)

logistics,
interoperability and data services supported by others?

e. Design Interface 7.e

PQM, RAM,
hardware,
logistics, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic

(1) Have testability, maintainability and supportability 7.e(1)

T&E, RAM, requirements been defined and adequately considered in the
logistics,
programmatic preliminary and detailed design?

(2) Have the results of Failure Mode, Effects, and Critical 7.e(2)
logistics,
hardware, Analysis (FMECA) been integrated with the Supportability
technology, Analysis program?
programmatic

(3) Do design processes include adherence to specific 7.e(3)

logistics, derating guidelines, particularly for electronic and electrical
hardware,
programmatic components?

(4) Do the parts and material selection processes ensure 7.e(4)

logistics, items are qualified to the worst case Design Reference
hardware,
programmatic Mission Profile (DRMP) and design environment?

(5) Has every electrical utilization equipment configuration 7.e(5)

item and the electrical power system or target host electrical
hardware, power systems been designed to the same version of MIL-
programmatic
STD-704?

(a) If not, have trade studies been documented justifying 7.e(5)(a)

hardware, each instance and have the required Engineering Level II

programmatic Department Heads granted MIL-STD-704 compatibility?

(6) Does the TEMP require MIL-HDBK-704 electrical power 7.e(6)

T&E, qualification testing be conducted on every electrical

programmatic utilization equipment configuration item?

CDR Page 31 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.e(6)(a)
n
(a) If not, have the required Engineering Level II
T&E, Department Heads granted MIL-HDBK-704 compliance
programmatic testing waivers?

(7) Have the guidance or requirements been documented in 7.e(7)

the parts and materials design guide before the start of
hardware, design, addressing parts selection, derating and testability
logistics, PQM factors? Adherence to the guidelines should be verified at
design reviews.

(8) Does the order of precedence for parts selection 7.e(8)

emphasize the use of qualified manufacturer's parts lists,
hardware, particularly for applications requiring extended temperature
logistics, PQM
ranges?

(9) Is a preferred parts list required prior to detailed design? 7.e(9)

hardware,
logistics, PQM

(10) Have shelf and operating life requirements been 7.e(10)

logistics,
hardware identified?

(11) Is identification of COTS / NDI reliability required? 7.e(11)

logistics, RAM

(12) Are the parts and materials selected qualified to the 7.e(12)
worst case DRMP and detail design environments? Uprating
logistics, or upscreening of parts is not a best practice and should not
hardware
be performed.

(13) Is parts derating required for all electronic and electrical 7.e(13)
logistics,
hardware components?

(14) Are electrical parameters of parts characterized to 7.e(14)

logistics, requirements derived from the DRMP to ensure that all

hardware selected parts are reliable for the proposed application?

(15) Are highly integrated parts (e.g., application specific 7.e(15)

logistics, integrated circuits) used to reduce the number of individual

hardware discrete parts and chips?

(16) Are highly integrated parts (e.g., application specific 7.e(16)

logistics, integrated circuits) used to reduce the number of

hardware interconnections?

(17) Are highly integrated parts (e.g., application specific 7.e(17)

logistics, integrated circuits) used to reduce the size, power

hardware consumption, and cooling requirements?

(18) Are highly integrated parts (e.g., application specific 7.e(18)

logistics,
hardware, RAM integrated circuits) used to reduce the failure rates?

(19) Has the critical items list been developed to include any 7.e(19)
hardware,
logistics, risk item of high technical risk with no workaround?

CDR Page 32 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.e(20)
n
(20) Has the critical items list been developed to include
hardware,
logistics, risk items with schedule or delivery risk?

(21) Has the critical items list been developed to include sole 7.e(21)
hardware,
logistics, risk source items?

(22) Has the critical items list been developed to include high 7.e(22)
hardware,
logistics, risk failure rate items and safety of flight items?

(23) Do COTS / NDI parts and their applications meet 7.e(23)

logistics,
hardware DRMP?

(24) Does selection of parts, maintenance processes and 7.e(24)

materials consider use of the least hazardous materials and
logistics, process consistent with performance, economy and life cycle
hardware, RAM
costs?

(25) What provisions for source control and approved 7.e(25)

logistics,
hardware, suppliers of critical safety items have been made?
programmatic

(26) Has the program manager pursued the use of standard 7.e(26)

logistics, PQM,
systems, subsystems, and support equipment against
technology, specific capabilities, technology growth, and cost
programmatic effectiveness?

(27) Does the Acquisition Strategy identify common systems 7.e(27)

logistics, PQM,
programmatic integrated into the program?

(28) Has the program manager established a process to 7.e(28)

hardware, reduce the proliferation of non-standard parts and equipment
logistics, PQM,
programmatic within and across system designs?

(29) Has a process been implemented to assess achieved 7.e(29)

logistics, RAM, random access memory performance by collection and

programmatic analysis of user data?

(30) Is a Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action 7.e(30)

System (FRACAS) established and are failures analyzed and
logistics, RAM
trended for ILS visibility?

(31) Will a FRACAS review be performed on engineering 7.e(31)

development models, pre-production units, and production
logistics, PQM
units?

(32) Will mishap reports associated with material and design 7.e(32)

risk, PQM, deficiencies be linked with or provide input into the FRACAS?
logistics

(33) Does CDR include an assessment of system 7.e(33)

logistics supportability requirements?

CDR Page 33 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.f
n
f. Maintenance Planning
PQM, T&E,
software,
hardware, RAM,
logistics, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) If the Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) approach 7.f(1)

logistics, RAM, is implemented, has an on-condition status information

programmatic system been defined (e.g., CBM+) and integrated?

(2) Does the Maintenance Plan define specific criteria for 7.f(2)
repair and maintenance for all applicable maintenance levels
in terms of time, accuracy, repair levels, built-in-test,
RAM, HSI,
testability, reliability, maintainability, nuclear hardening,
logistics support equipment requirements (including automatic test
equipment), manpower skills, and facility requirements for
peacetime and wartime environments?

(3) Does the Maintenance Plan state any inter-service 7.f(3)

maintenance requirements, organic and contractor mix,
logistics projected workloads, installation requirements and time
phasing for accomplishing depot maintenance requirements?

(4) Have initial estimates of depot capability / capacity and 7.f(4)

logistics resource requirements been made and documented?

(5) Does the Maintenance Plan define the maintenance 7.f(5)

approach including level of repair and does it include the
logistics, RAM results of the analysis to determine logical maintenance task
intervals, grouping, and packaging?

(6) Does the Maintenance Plan define the actions and 7.f(6)
support necessary to ensure that the system attains the
logistics, RAM specified Ao and that it is optimized considering RCM, CBM,
time-based maintenance, and total ownership cost?

(7) Does the Maintenance Plan state specific maintenance 7.f(7)

tasks, including battlefield damage repair procedures, to be
logistics, RAM
performed on the material system?

(8) Does the Maintenance Plan state the extent, duration, 7.f(8)
and use of interim contractor support (when applicable) and
logistics
provides plans for transition to organic support?

(9) Does the Maintenance Plan define actions and support 7.f(9)
required for materiel fielding, including environment, safety,
logistics
and occupational health planning?

(10) Does the Maintenance Plan specify the type of repair 7.f(10)
logistics, RAM (e.g., inspect or repair as necessary, disposal, or overhaul)?

(11) Has maintenance task time been derived from Human 7.f(11)
HSI, RAM,
logistics Engineering Design for maintainer task analysis?

CDR Page 34 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.f(12)
n
(12) Has maintenance task time been derived from Reliability
(e.g., Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)), Maintainability
logistics, RAM (e.g., Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), maintenance task
times), Availability (e.g., task time limits)?

(13) Has maintenance task time been derived from reliability 7.f(13)
and maintainability, test and performance monitoring, fault
logistics, RAM
detection, fault isolation and diagnostics?

(14) What post-production issues have been identified? 7.f(14)

logistics, PQM

(15) Will validation tests be conducted under representative 7.f(15)

logistics, T&E operating conditions?

(16) Has a preliminary Maintenance Plan been developed? 7.f(16)

logistics, RAM

(17) Has the preliminary Maintenance Plan been updated to 7.f(17)

reflect the results of systems engineering and supportability
logistics
analysis conducted during the systems integration effort?

(18) Do RAM thresholds used in establishing the 7.f(18)

maintenance concept support system availability and
logistics, RAM
performance requirements in the CDD?

(19) Does the PSP describe the program's approach to 7.f(19)

evolving the maintenance and support concepts into an
logistics, RAM
approved Maintenance Plan?

(20) Have funding requirements for interim support, transition 7.f(20)

logistics, planning, and establishment of organic capability been

programmatic identified and documented in the LRFS?

(21) Have depot capability / capacity and resource 7.f(21)

logistics,
programmatic requirements been identified and documented?

(22) If applicable, has a Software Support Activity (SSA) 7.f(22)

been designated for the post-production software
logistics, software
maintenance?

(23) Does the user agree with the Maintenance Plan? 7.f(23)
logistics,
programmatic

(24) What is the schedule for post-deployment review? 7.f(24)

logistics

(25) Are Maintenance Requirement Cards and Maintenance 7.f(25)

logistics, RAM Index Pages up to date?

(26) Has the interim depot been identified and have plans 7.f(26)

logistics, been made to ensure that it will be ready to accept workload?

programmatic

(27) Has a core depot analysis been completed? 7.f(27)

logistics

CDR Page 35 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.f(28)
n
(28) Has a depot maintenance inter-service study been
logistics,
interoperability completed?

(29) Are teaming efforts between the depots and original 7.f(29)
logistics equipment manufacturers being considered?

(30) Testability and Diagnostics 7.f(30)

logistics,
hardware,
software, RAM

(a) Is the testability and BIT concept defined with the 7.f(30)(a)
operational concept and the maintenance concept for all
logistics, RAM
levels of maintenance?

(b) Have the design analyses (e.g., fault tree analysis, 7.f(30)(b)
failure modes, effects and criticality analysis) been used to
logistics, RAM determine test point requirements and fault ambiguity
group sizes?

(c) Are the Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) and testability 7.f(30)(c)
analyses completed for each configuration item and for
each maintenance level to identify the optimum mix of BIT,
logistics, RAM
semi-automatic test equipment, and general-purpose test
equipment?

(d) Are detailed BIT and testability analyses completed by 7.f(30)(d)

logistics, RAM CDR?

(e) Is the effectiveness of BIT validated with tests? 7.f(30)(e)

logistics, RAM

(f) Does the failure of the BIT circuitry precipitate other 7.f(30)(f)
logistics,
hardware, hardware or software failures?
software

(g) Is BIT filtering applied to minimize false alarms? 7.f(30)(g)

logistics

(h) Are system anomalies and intermittentancies analyzed 7.f(30)(h)

for possible changes to the BIT design, thresholds, and
logistics
tolerances or filtering?

(i) Can BIT software be revised independently and without 7.f(30)(i)

logistics, software change to the operating software?

g. Support Equipment 7.g

T&E, RAM,
training, logistics,
HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Have the environmental and physical constraints, such as 7.g(1)

size, weight, power, temperatures and interfaces been
logistics
factored into support equipment design?

(2) Has an analysis to identify the optimum mix of automatic 7.g(2)

T&E, RAM, and manual fault detection and isolation equipment at each
logistics applicable maintenance level been conducted?

CDR Page 36 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.g(2)(a)
n
(a) Are other automatic test equipment items and BIT
logistics, T&E compatible?

(3) Are the support equipment strategies and diagnostics 7.g(3)

concepts defined in the preliminary Maintenance Plan
logistics, RAM consistent with the LORA, organic repair / contractor support,
and sparing strategies?

(4) Does the LRFS reflect funds needed to acquire and 7.g(4)
support Test and Monitoring System (TAMS), including TPS
development, maintenance assistance modules, test
logistics, RAM
requirements documents and metrology / calibration
services?

(5) Is there a clear process by which the EMD contractor will 7.g(5)
validate and demonstrate compliance with fault detection and
logistics
isolation requirements?

(6) Has an activity been designated to provide life cycle 7.g(6)

support for TAMS, including in-service support for TPSs and
logistics
logistics support for Peculiar Support Equipment (PSE)?

(7) Has the installation of new support equipment in 7.g(7)

logistics, training, maintenance, ship, shore, depot and training facilities been
interoperability staffed through the appropriate stakeholders?

(8) Are manpower, training, maintenance levels, and 7.g(8)

logistics, training,
HSI maintenance task requirements identified?

(9) Has the support equipment requirements document (or 7.g(9)

equivalent) been submitted by the contractor to justify
logistics support equipment requirements and initiate follow-on
support activities?

(10) Is the required technical documentation to support the 7.g(10)

support equipment identified and does it include procedures
logistics, RAM
to perform the required tests and diagnostics?

(11) Has the required technical documentation to support the 7.g(11)

support equipment been identified and include test
logistics, RAM measurement and diagnostic equipment calibration
requirements and associated technical parameters?

(12) Is required technical documentation for support 7.g(12)

equipment identified and does it include all product and
logistics, RAM technical data required to support and operate the support
equipment throughout the life cycle of that product?

(13) Is required technical documentation for support 7.g(13)

equipment identified and does it include test fixtures or
logistics, RAM
interfaces to connect the system to the test equipment?

(14) Have Special Purpose Electronic Test Equipment 7.g(14)

logistics (SPETE) installations been scheduled?

CDR Page 37 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.g(15)
n
(15) Are required common and peculiar support equipment
calibration requirements and procedures, and required
logistics, RAM maintenance assist modules and tools identified in the users
logistics support summary?

(16) Are human engineering and user characteristics 7.g(16)

(strength, dimensions and perceptual considerations)
HSI, RAM, considered in design of support equipment to ensure safety,
logistics
efficiency and manpower limitations during sustainment?

(17) Are the deficiencies in the efficiency, cost, and safety of 7.g(17)

logistics, common support equipment outside the PM's management

programmatic authority communicated to relevant item managers?

h. Supply Support 7.h

logistics,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Spares Modeling and Readiness Assessment 7.h(1)

logistics

(a) Has the Supply Support Management Plan been 7.h(1)(a)

logistics updated to support systems demonstration?

(b) Does the sequencing and timing of events in the Supply 7.h(1)(b)
Support Management Plan logically support planned IOC /
logistics
Material Support Date (MSD)?

(c) Are accepted sparing analysis and modeling tools being 7.h(1)(c)
utilized and are the assumptions consistent with the
logistics supportability analysis and the prescribed maintenance
concept?

(e) Are supply support funding requirements reflected in 7.h(1)(e)

logistics the LRFS?

(2) Organic Support 7.h(2)

logistics,
interoperability

(a) Are organic support requirements and funding defined 7.h(2)(a)

logistics to transition from interim to organic support?

(b) Is inter-service visibility planned for optimal organic 7.h(2)(b)

logistics,
interoperability support selection?

(c) Is a POA&M developed and implemented? 7.h(2)(c)

logistics

(3) Is contractor support capable of integrating with the 7.h(3)

logistics, defense logistics chain, including logistics C4I and ebusiness

interoperability routines?

(4) Warranty Management 7.h(4)

logistics,
programmatic

CDR Page 38 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.h(4)(a)
n
(a) Are mutually beneficial warranty incentives established
to facilitate long-term business relationships, and is the
logistics provider given incentive to meet specified performance
measures?

(b) Is a cost-benefit analysis conducted to determine the 7.h(4)(b)

logistics appropriateness of implementing a warranty plan?

(c) Whether PBL or traditional, are warranties being 7.h(4)(c)

logistics, considered and integrated in developing the program's

programmatic logistics support strategy?

(d) Does the warranty administration and enforcement 7.h(4)(d)

include defect reporting, analysis and corrective action
logistics
processed timely and effective?

(e) Is a post award cost-effectiveness assessment of the 7.h(4)(e)

logistics warranty plan periodically performed?

(f) Does the user logistics support summary identify 7.h(4)(f)

logistics warranty requirements?

(g) Have any issues with warranty administration at the O- 7.h(4)(g)

and I-levels been identified during early fielding of the
logistics
system?

(h) Have necessary modifications to the warranty program 7.h(4)(h)

logistics,
programmatic been made?

i. Manpower, Personnel, and Training (MP&T) 7.i

training, RAM,
logistics, HSI,
software, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Was a Manpower Estimate Report completed and 7.i(1)

logistics, HSI,
programmatic approved? (ACAT 1 only)

(2) Appropriate Service Planning 7.i(2)

training, HSI,
logistics, RAM,
programmatic

(a) Has the training been reviewed and approved? 7.i(2)(a)

HSI, training,
programmatic

(b) Is there a clear plan on how courses and related 7.i(2)(b)

training, HSI, materials and devices will be developed for training at each
programmatic required level of maintenance?

(c) Is there a plan for validating and verifying training 7.i(2)(c)

training, HSI,
programmatic materials?

(d) Have training device requirements been coordinated 7.i(2)(d)

training, HSI,
programmatic with the acquiring level of maintenance?

CDR Page 39 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.i(2)(e)
n
(e) Does MP&T planning adequately sequence tasks and
HSI, RAM, events to assure personnel are trained to operate and
training,
programmatic maintain the system during IOT&E?

(f) Are training requirements reflected in the LRFS for 7.i(2)(f)

training, logistics, course and materials development, factory training, and

HSI training devices and equipment?

(g) Are resource requirements specified for training 7.i(2)(g)

training, HSI,
logistics equipment, materials, facilities, and personnel?

(h) Will instruction in formal schools, on-the-job-training 7.i(2)(h)

and follow-on training include system operation and
training, HSI, maintenance levels (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly,
logistics, RAM semi-annually and on condition), individual, team, and
instructor training?

(i) Will training requirements reflect configuration updates 7.i(2)(i)

training, HSI,
logistics to the weapon system?

(j) Is all of the required logistics support (spares, support 7.i(2)(j)

training, HSI, equipment, etc.) for the training schools planned and on
logistics contract and available for delivery at IOC?

(3) Training Outline and Curricula Design 7.i(3)

training, HSI,
logistics

(a) Are terminal training objectives defined in detail? 7.i(3)(a)

training, HSI,
logistics

(b) Are specific criteria established to determine the 7.i(3)(b)

training, HSI,
logistics success of training?

(c) Are operator and maintainer training embedded in the 7.i(3)(c)

training, HSI,
logistics Interactive Electronic Technical Manual (IETM)?

(d) Are job performance aids included? 7.i(3)(d)

logistics, HSI

(e) Have safety procedures been incorporated into training 7.i(3)(e)

training, HSI,
logistics curricula?

(4) Training Material 7.i(4)

logistics, training,
RAM, software,
HSI

(a) Are technical manuals developed prior to the 7.i(4)(a)

training, HSI,
logistics, RAM development of training materials?

(b) Are instructor guides, course curriculum and student 7.i(4)(b)

training, HSI, guides, as well as audio-visual training aids, developed for

logistics classroom training?

(c) Is software developed to disseminate computer-based 7.i(4)(c)

logistics, training,
software, HSI training?

CDR Page 40 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.i(4)(d)
n
(d) Is the training material evaluated for content, clarity and
training, HSI, accuracy, typically in a controlled environment of a pilot
logistics course, after development?

(e) Are training courses adequate? 7.i(4)(e)

training, HSI,
logistics

(f) Do training courses train on the fielded configuration(s)? 7.i(4)(f)

training, HSI,
logistics

(g) Are training courses conducted in a sufficient timeframe 7.i(4)(g)

training, HSI,
logistics to support IOC and initial fielding?

(5) Training Devices and Simulators 7.i(5)

logistics, training,
T&E, software,
HSI

(a) Will training devices to support operator or maintainer 7.i(5)(a)

training, HSI,
logistics training be identified?

(b) Are developmental T&E activities being used for 7.i(5)(b)

validation of training requirements and initial training for
HSI, T&E, training
OT?

(c) Will a military characteristics document be prepared for 7.i(5)(c)

training, HSI, each training device, defining its basic, physical and
logistics functional requirements?

(d) Is maximum embedded on-board training capability in 7.i(5)(d)

training, HSI,
logistics deployed equipment used?

(e) Are pre-faulted modules or software to simulate faults 7.i(5)(e)

training, software,
logistics, HSI for diagnostics training used?

(f) Are simulations of scenarios reflecting the actual 7.i(5)(f)

training, HSI,
logistics operating environment used for operator training?

(6) Initial Training Requirements 7.i(6)

T&E, RAM,
training, logistics,
HSI,
programmatic

(a) Is initial training provided in the operation, 7.i(6)(a)

training, HSI,
logistics, RAM maintenance, or employment of a system or training aid?

(b) Are contractor T&E activities used for validation of 7.i(6)(b)

T&E, logistics, training requirements and initial training for operational

HSI, training evaluation?

(c) What are the planned Ready for Training (RFT) dates 7.i(6)(c)
training, logistics,
HSI for each course?

(d) Are training requirements reflected in the LRFS for 7.i(6)(d)

training, logistics, course and materials development, factory training,
HSI,
programmatic training devices and equipment?

CDR Page 41 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.j
n
j. Packaging, Handling, Storage, and Transportation (PHS&T)
risk, logistics,
programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Have potential PHS&T related problems been identified 7.j(1)

risk, programmatic and are risk mitigation plans in place?

(2) If new hazardous materials are being introduced, are 7.j(2)

PHS&T plans adequate to meet statutory and regulatory
risk, programmatic
requirements?

(3) Does the LRFS identify PHS&T funding requirements? 7.j(3)

risk, programmatic

(4) Has DoD’s computerized Container Design Retrieval 7.j(4)

System database been searched to preclude the design of
logistics, new specialized containers when suitable ones exist in the
programmatic
system?

(5) Has the MIL-STD-2073, Military Packaging, been 7.j(5)

considered for Items that documented analyses have shown
logistics, cannot be protected and preserved in a cost-effective
programmatic
manner using commercial packaging?

(6) Has the MIL-STD-2073, Military Packaging, been 7.j(6)

logistics, considered for Items delivered during wartime for deployment

programmatic with operational units?

(7) Has the MIL-STD-2073, Military Packaging, been 7.j(7)

logistics,
programmatic considered for items requiring reusable containers?

(8) Has the MIL-STD-2073, Military Packaging, been 7.j(8)

logistics,
programmatic considered for items intended for delivery-at-sea?

(9) Has the MIL-STD-2073, Military Packaging, been 7.j(9)

logistics, considered for items where the contractor has determined

programmatic military packaging is the optimal packaging solution?

k. Configuration Management (CM) 7.k

logistics, software,
PQM, technology, (See sections 6.b thru 6.b(23))
programmatic

l. Product and Technical Data 7.l

logistics, PQM,
technology,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Is a concept of operations for an IDE developed, 7.l(1)

implemented, and managed throughout the system life cycle
logistics, to ensure information and data interoperability with other
interoperability
programs and their interfacing logistics systems?

(2) Are logistics product and technical data for new systems 7.l(2)
received, managed, and stored in an IDE to share data
logistics
across the DoD?

CDR Page 42 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.l(3)
n
(3) Are product life cycle support operations automated using
an approved IDE to improve logistics and business
logistics
processes?

(4) Are electronic data interchange on-line access and 7.l(4)

automation issues addressed starting with development of
logistics the information exchange requirements and continuing
through the IDE concept of operations?

(5) Have authoritative data sources and the associated 7.l(5)

logistics change authority been identified?

(6) Has a product or technical data management plan 7.l(6)

(guided by the IDE concept of operations, including change
logistics, control processes and in-process reviews, as appropriate)
technology, PQM
been developed and validated?

(7) Is a Computer Aided Design, Modeling, and Engineering 7.l(7)

logistics, product source data acquired in acceptable digital format and

technology, PQM managed according to the IDE CONOPS?

(8) Has a designated Government technical data review 7.l(8)

logistics,
technology authority been established?

(9) Has an IDE implementation plan been identified as a 7.l(9)

logistics, proposal requirement of the RFP or as a contract

technology deliverable?

(10) Is there a clear plan for the integration of contractor 7.l(10)

logistics, PQM, technical information systems and processes for engineering,

technology manufacturing, and logistics support?

(11) Is Government authorized access to contractor 7.l(11)

logistics,
technology, databases necessary to support EMD?
programmatic

(12) Does the delivery schedule for the technical data 7.l(12)
logistics,
technology, package support a competitive production contract?
programmatic

(13) Do drawings of parts and assemblies identified as critical 7.l(13)

hardware, safety items include critical characteristics and quality
logistics, PQM,
technology surveillance requirements?

m. Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH) 7.m

logistics, T&E,
PQM, HSI, RAM,
training, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Have all of the ESOH program requirements been 7.m(1)

achieved or risks mitigated, and solutions integrated into the
HSI, risk
complete system design?

(2) Has a program to eliminate ESOH hazards or manage the 7.m(2)

logistics, risk risk where the hazard cannot be avoided, been established?

CDR Page 43 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.m(3)
n logistics, (3) Has integration of the DoD environmental goals for
programmatic, system planning and development begun?
interoperability

(4) Program Environmental, Safety and Health Evaluation 7.m(4)

risk, HSI, logistics, (PESHE)
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Has a PESHE been developed that describes the 7.m(4)(a)

strategy for integrating ESOH considerations into the
risk, HSI, logistics systems engineering process using the methodologies in
the MIL-STD 882D, Standard Practice for System Safety?

(b) Has a PESHE been developed that describes an 7.m(4)(b)

identification of responsibilities for implementing the ESOH
risk, HSI, logistics
strategy been established?

(c) Has a PESHE been developed that describes the 7.m(4)(c)

approach to identify ESOH hazards eliminated or reduced
risk, HSI, logistics the hazards and implemented controls for managing those
ESOH risks where they cannot be avoided?

(d) Has a PESHE been developed that describes the 7.m(4)(d)

identification and status of ESOH risks including approval
risk, HSI, logistics, by proper authority for residual ESOH risks (based on DoD
programmatic
policy and MIL-STD 882D)?

(e) Has a PESHE been developed that describes the 7.m(4)(e)

method for tracking progress in the management and
mitigation of ESOH hazards and associated risks and for
risk, HSI, logistics
measuring the effectiveness of ESOH risk controls been
established?

(f) Has a PESHE been developed that describes a 7.m(4)(f)

schedule for completing National Environmental Policy Act
logistics, HSI, (NEPA) / Executive Order (E.O.) 12114 documentation
programmatic,
interoperability
(including the approval authority of the documents as
detailed in DoD policy) been completed?

(g) Has a PESHE been developed that describes the 7.m(4)(g)

identification of all Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) and
logistics, HSI hazardous waste associated with the system and the plan
for their demilitarization and disposal?

(5) Is the NEPA the national charter for protection of the 7.m(5)

logistics, T&E,
environment? Does it establish policies, set goals and
PQM, training, provide means for carrying out environmental policy? The
programmatic following comprise the NEPA:

(a) Is a POA&M (NEPA / EO 12114 Compliance Schedule) 7.m(5)(a)

logistics, T&E,
developed to identify significant program events to ensure
PQM, training, NEPA or E.O. 12114 compliance? Does it include at a
programmatic minimum (as appropriate):

logistics, T&E
(I) Conducting T&E of the system or subsystem? 7.m(5)(a)(I)

CDR Page 44 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o
n logistics, PQM
(II) Contracting for production? 7.m(5)(a)(II)

(III) Planning basing, training, and home porting 7.m(5)(a)(III)

logistics, training locations?

(IV) Planning new or major upgrades to facilities or 7.m(5)(a)(IV)

logistics supporting infrastructure to support the system?

logistics
(V) Demilitarization and disposal of the system? 7.m(5)(a)(V)

(b) Do the NEPA decisions result in categorical exclusion, 7.m(5)(b)

finding of No Significant Impact based upon an
logistics, environmental assessment, or Record of decision based
programmatic
upon an environmental impact statement?

(c) Do specific impact assessments include, Clean Water 7.m(5)(c)

Act and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
logistics
Permits?

(d) Do specific impact assessments include National 7.m(5)(d)

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits and
logistics
Marine Mammal Protection Act?

(e) Do specific impact assessments include Clean Air Act, 7.m(5)(e)

air permits, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
logistics
Air Pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality Standards?

(f) Do specific impact assessments include Resource 7.m(5)(f)

logistics Conservation and Recovery Act?

(g) Do specific impact assessments include Endangered 7.m(5)(g)

logistics Species Act?

(h) Is the support system performing as expected? 7.m(5)(h)

logistics

(6) Safety and health activities 7.m(6)

T&E, risk, RAM,
logistics, HSI,
programmatic

(a) Is noise abatement compliant with all Federal and State 7.m(6)(a)
logistics, HSI standards?

(b) Is material toxicity compliant with all Federal and State 7.m(6)(b)
logistics, HSI standards?

(c) Is personnel protective equipment compliant with all 7.m(6)(c)

HSI, RAM,
logistics Federal and State standards?

CDR Page 45 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.m(6)(d)
n
(d) Did the program manager provide a safety release(s) to
developmental and operational testers prior to any test
using personnel?
T&E, risk, (A safety release communicates to the activity or personnel
logistics, HSI, performing the test the risks associated with the test and
programmatic
the mitigating factors required, helping to ensure safe
completion of the test.)

(7) System Safety 7.m(7)

logistics, risk (See Section 9.c(8))

(8) Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) Management 7.m(8)

training, RAM,
logistics, risk

(a) Have those hazardous materials which are prohibited in 7.m(8)(a)

the weapon system design (due to operation,
maintenance, and disposal costs associated with the use
logistics, risk
of such materials) been identified and communicated via
contracts to include sub-contractors?

(b) Have hazardous materials and associated processes 7.m(8)(b)

whose use cannot be avoided been documented and
communicated to the user and support installations? This
logistics, risk includes an inventory of materials incorporated into the
weapon system (to include COTS and NDI) during
production and those materials required for maintenance.

(c) Does the program have a plan for tracking, storing, 7.m(8)(c)
handling and disposing of hazardous materials and
logistics, risk
hazardous waste consistent with HAZMAT directives?

(d) Are hazardous material findings and determinations 7.m(8)(d)

training, HSI, incorporated into the training program for all system-related
logistics, risk personnel as applicable?

(e) Does the user logistics support summary identify 7.m(8)(e)

logistics, risk hazardous materials required to support the system?

(f) What efforts will be made to reduce or eliminate the use 7.m(8)(f)
logistics, risk of hazardous material for the support of the system?

(g) Are material safety data sheets available for all 7.m(8)(g)
logistics, risk hazardous items?

(h) Are applicable hazardous material safety procedures 7.m(8)(h)

risk, RAM,
logistics called out in associated MRCs?

(i) Have the hazardous materials required for the 7.m(8)(i)

maintenance of the system been coordinated with facility
logistics, risk
or ship for inclusion in their authorized usage lists?

(9) Pollution Prevention Program 7.m(9)

logistics

CDR Page 46 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.m(9)(a)
n
(a) Does the pollution prevention program identify impacts
of the system on the environment; personnel wastes
released to the environment; and associated source
logistics, HSI
reduction opportunities to include noise, engine emissions,
and hazardous materials?

(b) Does the program have a plan to recycle or dispose of 7.m(9)(b)

system replaceable and disposable components (such as
logistics metals, plastics, electronic components, oils, coolants and
refrigerants) during system life and end of service life?

n. Facilities and Infrastructure 7.n

training, logistics,
programmatic, 0 0 0 0 0
interoperability

(1) Have Military Construction (MILCON) requirements been 7.n(1)

programmatic identified in the LRFS?

(2) Have the types of facilities and infrastructures required to 7.n(2)

training, logistics, support and sustain the new or modified system been
programmatic,
interoperability identified? Do they include:

(a) Parking aprons and hangar space for aircraft? 7.n(2)(a)

logistics,
programmatic

(b) Support facilities, supply warehouses, transit sheds, 7.n(2)(b)

maintenance facilities, dry dock capability, and training
facilities (for both classrooms and trainers for operational
training, logistics,
programmatic, training and maintenance training, including required
interoperability product / technical data to ensure efficient, effective
support of facilities)?

(c) Transient support requirements when the system 7.n(2)(c)

logistics,
requires some level of support for continental United
programmatic, States (US) and outside continental US activities that are
interoperability not regular homeports or support sites?

(3) Does the PSP include analysis to determine facility 7.n(3)

logistics,
programmatic requirements?

(4) Are the facilities / infrastructure support requirements 7.n(4)

logistics, documented in the PSP, LRFS, and / or the program’s

programmatic Facilities Management Plan or its equivalent?

(5) Is there a Facilities Requirements Document (FRD) and a 7.n(5)

logistics,
programmatic schedule to conduct site surveys?

(6) Is the facilities requirement development process 7.n(6)

logistics,
programmatic integrated with the supportability analysis process?

(7) Has environmental planning been performed and 7.n(7)

documentation provided in accordance with environmental
logistics, regulation (NEPA / E.O. 12114) for new construction or
programmatic
modification of existing facilities?

CDR Page 47 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.n(8)
n
(8) Has the program assessed (e.g., site surveys and trade
logistics, studies) all means of satisfying a facility requirement prior to
programmatic selecting the use of MILCON?

(9) For construction or alterations less than $750,000, has 7.n(9)

logistics, the program office identified funding to support the

programmatic construction, and is the contract award in process?

(10) For projects in excess of $750,000 (classified as 7.n(10)

logistics, MILCON), have congressional authorization and funding

programmatic been approved?

(11) Have the estimates of facility requirements and 7.n(11)

logistics, associated costs been refined (including detailed project

programmatic documentation) and have cost estimates been developed?

o. Automated Information Technology (AIT) 7.o

logistics, training,
programmatic (See section 6.i thru 6.i(2)(g))

p. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages 7.p

hardware, RAM,
logistics, T&E, (DMSMS)
software, PQM,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Has a formal DMSMS program been established and 7.p(1)

logistics,
documented consistent with the DoD policy and guidance
programmatic, DoD 4140.1-R, DoD Supply Chain Material Management
interoperability Regulation, 23 May 2003?

(2) Has a formal DMSMS program been established and 7.p(2)

documented consistent with the ASN (RD&A) memorandum
logistics, dated 27 January 2005, “DMSMS Management Guidance"?
programmatic

(3) Has a formal DMSMS program been established and 7.p(3)

documented consistent with the DASN(L) memorandum
logistics, dated 12 April 2005, “DMSMS Program Management Plans
programmatic
and Metrics” (and attached Management Plan Guidance)?

(4) Is the DMSMS strategy integrated with the program’s 7.p(4)

logistics, PQM, technology roadmap, as well as the industry technology
technology,
programmatic roadmaps for embedded microelectronics?

(5) Does the road mapping process consider the 7.p(5)

logistics, PQM,
technology identification of critical items and technologies?

(6) Does the road mapping process consider the 7.p(6)

logistics, PQM,
technology identification of emerging technologies?

(7) Does the road mapping process consider the DMSMS 7.p(7)

logistics, PQM, forecasts and impacts integrated into technology refresh and
technology insertion planning?

CDR Page 48 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.p(8)
n
(8) Are the DMSMS management approach (e.g., the level of
indenture) and strategy (e.g., organic, commercial, PBL, field
logistics, PQM
activity managed) defined and implemented?

(9) Are DMSMS key activities tied to the IMS and do they 7.p(9)
logistics, PQM,
programmatic identify relationships and interdependencies between tasks?

(10) Are active microelectronics managed at the piece part 7.p(10)

logistics, PQM level unless otherwise determined by a BCA?

(11) Have DMSMS forecasting and management tools and / 7.p(11)

or service providers been researched and selected, and has
logistics, PQM
the Bill of Material (BoM) been loaded into the system?

(12) Have identification and forecasting for obsolescence 7.p(12)

timelines, impact, and mitigation been conducted and do they
logistics, PQM, consider Product (revisions and generation / technology
technology
changes) and supplier base?

(13) Have identification and forecasting for obsolescence 7.p(13)

timelines, impact, and mitigation been conducted and do they
logistics, PQM
consider contract period and life cycle?

(14) Is an on-going review of the parts lists and BoM to 7.p(14)

logistics, PQM identify obsolescence or discontinuance issues conducted?

(15) Has a strategy for DMSMS design and manufacturing 7.p(15)

hardware, documentation been developed to consider design disclosed

logistics, PQM items, including sub-tier hardware indenture levels?

(16) Has a strategy for DMSMS design and manufacturing 7.p(16)

documentation been developed to consider form, fit, function,
hardware, and proprietary design items, including sub-tier hardware
logistics, PQM
indenture levels?

(17) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(17)

logistics, PQM,
technology DMSMS by addressing open system architecture?

(18) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(18)

DMSMS by addressing order of precedence for parts
hardware, selection and selection of parts relatively new in their life
logistics, PQM
cycle?

(19) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(19)

hardware,
logistics, PQM DMSMS by addressing use of custom parts?

(20) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(20)

DMSMS by addressing the requirement for a preferred parts
hardware, list and parts control prior to detailed design to minimize
logistics, PQM
obsolescence issues?

(21) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(21)

logistics, PQM, DMSMS by addressing identification of technology life

technology expectancies?

CDR Page 49 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.p(22)
n
(22) Does the design approach minimize the impact of
logistics, PQM, DMSMS by addressing tie-in with technology refresh and
technology block upgrade?

(23) Does the design approach minimize the impact of 7.p(23)

DMSMS by addressing design reviews to verify DMSMS
logistics, PQM
approaches and solutions?

(24) Is a DMSMS BCA performed as part of trade-studies to 7.p(24)

determine return on investment on mitigation actions and to
logistics, PQM
support DMSMS decisions?

(25) Is an obsolescence life cycle (versus contract period) 7.p(25)

logistics, PQM mitigation strategy defined?

(26) Are systems that utilize the same components and 7.p(26)
technologies identified, and are commodity management and
logistics, PQM, preferred material processes established to standardize use
technology
of like material across programs?

(27) Funding 7.p(27)

logistics, PQM

(a) Has DMSMS total ownership cost and cost avoidance 7.p(27)(a)
logistics, PQM been estimated?

(b) Is the current and out-year budget established and 7.p(27)(b)

planned based on DMSMS forecast, tracking, and
logistics, PQM
mitigation efforts?

(c) Are funding shortfalls (appropriation, amount, timing) 7.p(27)(c)

logistics, PQM and impact identified, prioritized, and documented?

(d) Are budget planning decisions for DMSMS referenced 7.p(27)(d)

logistics, PQM in the sponsor’s decision and reflected in the LRFS?

(28) Has the program defined DMSMS metrics and does it 7.p(28)
track DMSMS cases, trends, and associated solutions and
logistics, PQM
cost?

(29) Has an exit strategy been developed and is it contained 7.p(29)

in contractual PBL documentation that provides DMSMS
logistics, PQM configuration data access necessary to transition product
support capability?

(30) Do contractual data requirements define contractor 7.p(30)

logistics, PQM, versus Government life cycle DMSMS tasks and

interoperability responsibilities?

(31) Do contractual data requirements define DMSMS 7.p(31)

logistics, PQM incentives and awards?

(32) Do contractual data requirements define decision on 7.p(32)

logistics, PQM, ownership of product and technical data package rights and
technology COTS licensing agreements?

CDR Page 50 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.p(33)
n
(33) Do contractual data requirements define PBL / Total
System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) strategy for
logistics, PQM
legacy system DMSMS?

(34) Do contractual data requirements define DMSMS 7.p(34)

logistics, PQM planning and mitigation requirements?

(35) Do contractual data requirements define system 7.p(35)

logistics, PQM architecture design to minimize obsolescence costs?

(36) Do contractual data requirements define DMSMS 7.p(36)

hardware,
production, repair, and procurement capability including
logistics, RAM, hardware and software, support and test equipment, tooling
software, PQM and fixtures, and chip and die availability and storage?

(37) Do contractual data requirements define supply chain 7.p(37)

monitoring and management including contractor and vendor
hardware, notification of pending parts obsolescence and part and
logistics, PQM
firmware changes?

(38) Do contractual data requirements define configuration 7.p(38)

management to the appropriate obsolescence mitigation
logistics, PQM
levels?

(39) Do contractual data requirements define DMSMS 7.p(39)

database establishment and maintenance through an IDE
logistics, PQM concept of operations that supports the total life cycle
management of the product?

(40) Does the technical data package that supports the 7.p(40)
DMSMS mitigation strategy, include specifications, technical
logistics, PQM,
manuals, engineering drawings, and product data models
technology, T&E that provide appropriate level of detail for reprocurement,
maintenance and manufacture of the product?

(41) Does the technical data package that supports the 7.p(41)
DMSMS mitigation strategy include specifications, technical
logistics, PQM,
manuals, engineering drawings, and product data models
technology, T&E that provide appropriate level of detail for reprocurement,
maintenance and manufacture of the product?

(42) Does the technical data package that supports the 7.p(42)
DMSMS mitigation strategy include special instructions for
PQM, T&E, items such as unique manufacturing, quality and test
logistics
processes, and preservation and packaging?

(43) Does the technical data package that supports the 7.p(43)
DMSMS mitigation strategy include Very High Speed
hardware, Integrated Circuit Hardware Description Language (VHDL)
logistics, PQM
documentation of digital electronic circuitry?

CDR Page 51 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 7.p(44)
n
(44) Does the technical data package that supports the
DMSMS mitigation strategy include the version, release,
logistics, PQM change status, and other identification details of each
deliverable item?

(45) Are the program, design, and production readiness 7.p(45)

logistics, PQM,
programmatic reviews of contractor DMSMS management effective?

(46) Has provisioning screening required for maximum use of 7.p(46)

logistics, PQM existing supply items been completed?

(47) Are the contractors’ DMSMS programs assessed to 7.p(47)

logistics, PQM ensure that program requirements are met?

(48) Are the DMSMS considerations incorporated into the 7.p(48)

logistics, PQM PSP and Post Production Support Plan?

(49) Are items that are single source and those for which the 7.p(49)

logistics, PQM, Government cannot obtain data rights and the associated
interoperability corrective action plans identified?

(50) Are strategies to resolve potential DMSMS problems 7.p(50)

logistics, PQM, (e.g., production or repair capabilities, software upgrades and

software, risk maintenance, support equipment) established?

(51) Are predictive cost-effective industry solutions used to 7.p(51)

logistics, PQM,
software, risk reduce DMSMS risks and enhance performance?

(52) Is a program reprocurement engineering support 7.p(52)

logistics, PQM,
programmatic agreement in place?

(53) Is there monitoring of usage and anticipated demand 7.p(53)

versus items available for DMSMS mitigation planning
logistics, PQM
throughout the items life cycle?

CDR Page 52 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 8
n logistics,
8. Requirements Management
hardware, RAM,
software, T&E,
technology, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Status of Requirements Management 8.a

software, T&E,
logistics,
technology, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Is there a process in place for requirements management 8.a(1)

programmatic, and is it being applied to properly address this stage of the

interoperability program to include Joint, SoS and FoS requirements?

(2) Are requirements being managed and traced from higher 8.a(2)
software, T&E, level (parent) requirements to lower level (offspring)
technology,
programmatic requirements?

(3) Are there any “orphan” or “childless” requirements? 8.a(3)

software, T&E,
technology,
programmatic

(4) Is there full traceability from systems requirements 8.a(4)

software, T&E,
allocated to software provided through: software
technology, requirements, software design, interface requirements,
programmatic interface design, source code and test procedures?

(5) Are any COTS, GOTS or reused software traced to: 8.a(5)

software, T&E,
systems requirements, software requirements, interface
technology, requirements, interface design, software design, and test
programmatic procedures?

(6) Have post IOC plans been developed for continued 8.a(6)
logistics evolution of sustainment strategies?

(7) Are logistics and overall sustainment performance 8.a(7)

logistics requirements stated in the CDD and CPD?

b. Have airworthiness requirements been addressed and 8.b

hardware,
technology, documented in the detailed design?
programmatic

c. Is adequate requirements traceability in place to ensure 8.c

technology,
programmatic compliance with the CDD / CPD at OT?

d. Are both effectiveness and suitability requirements being 8.d

hardware,
programmatic addressed and allocated in the detailed design?

e. Product Baseline 8.e

software,
hardware,
logistics, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Has a Product Baseline, or equivalent, been established 8.e(1)

software,
hardware, and is it complete? Is this baseline under CM control?
logistics,
programmatic

CDR Page 53 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 8.e(2)
n
(2) Are the software detailed design documents complete
software, logistics,
programmatic and under configuration control?

(3) Are the interface design documents complete and under 8.e(3)
logistics,
programmatic, configuration control?
interoperability

f. Net-Centric Consolidated Compliance Checklist (NCCCC) 8.f

HSI, logistics,
interoperability 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Conforms with Net-Centric Policy Requirements (Ref Dec 8.f(1)

logistics, 21 Net-Centric Consolidated Compliance Checklist -

interoperability NCCCC)

(2) Does the detailed design comply with HSI CAL? 8.f(2)
logistics, HSI

g. Requirements Management - T&E 8.g

hardware,
logistics, T&E 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Are there plans in place to ensure test requirements are 8.g(1)

hardware, addressed and documented to the same level of detail as

logistics, T&E functional requirements (operation and suitability)?

h. Performance Requirements 8.h

hardware,
logistics, RAM (see section 7.a.(1) thru 7.a.(1)(h))

CDR Page 54 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9
n
9. System Detailed Design
logistics, T&E,
software, RAM,
HSI, hardware,
PQM, training, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Is the subsystem detailed design traced to subsystem 9.a

logistics,
hardware, requirements?
programmatic

b. Do the design trades made amongst hardware, software and 9.b

hardware, RAM, the human contribute to a balanced solution for the operator
logistics, HSI,
programmatic and maintainer?

c. For the overall system and each CI, the following system 9.c
PQM, RAM,
hardware, HSI,
requirements should be assessed, as applicable:
logistics, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic

(1) Have the KPPs and other performance requirements, 9.c(1)

HSI, hardware, both explicit and derived been defined, quantified and
programmatic documented?

(2) Have all functional requirements in the functional baseline 9.c(2)

hardware, been allocated to a CI and are these documented in the
logistics, HSI,
programmatic detailed design and allocated baseline?

(3) Is there a traceability matrix that reflects this allocation? 9.c(3)

hardware,
logistics, HSI,
programmatic

(4) If applicable, have airworthiness considerations been 9.c(4)

hardware,
logistics, HSI, addressed?
programmatic

hardware, (5) Is there a plan for flight clearance? 9.c(5)

logistics, HSI,
programmatic

(6) Reliability, Availability, Maintainability (RAM) 9.c(6)

PQM, T&E, RAM,
hardware, risk,
logistics,
technology,
programmatic

(a) Have RAM and Built-In-Test (BIT) requirements been 9.c(6)(a)

logistics,
hardware, RAM, addressed in the system detailed designs?
programmatic

(b) Is the final mission profile definition complete and does 9.c(6)(b)
logistics, it accurately define the expected fleet operational
hardware, RAM,
programmatic environment?

(c) Are the final RAM block diagrams and math models 9.c(6)(c)
logistics, complete, accurate, and do they meet the required mission
hardware, RAM,
programmatic reliability performance requirements?

(d) Is the final FMECA complete and accurate with specific 9.c(6)(d)

logistics,
examples of design changes implemented to eliminate
hardware, RAM, single point failure modes or improve overall weapons
programmatic system reliability?

CDR Page 55 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.c(6)(e)
n
(e) Where the FMECA identified single point failures and
logistics, reliability improvements, were they assessed for safety
hardware, RAM,
programmatic impacts and criticality?

(f) Were safety critical subsystems / assemblies 9.c(6)(f)

logistics,
hardware, PQM, decomposed to the item level, documented as critical
technology, safety items, and appropriately coordinated?
programmatic

(I) Was a critical safety item list (and accompanying 9.c(6)(f)(I)

logistics,
technical information) documented, delivered,
hardware, approved, and provided to appropriate logistics
technology, HSI personnel for maintenance planning and provisioning?

(II) Are the lists accurate and all inclusive? 9.c(6)(f)(II)

PQM, hardware,
programmatic

(III) Do drawings and associated technical data confirm 9.c(6)(f)(III)

that critical safety items are clearly identified, along with
PQM, hardware, critical and major characteristics, tolerances, critical
programmatic processes and inspection, and other quality assurance
requirements?

(g) Are RAM allocations complete and accurate? 9.c(6)(g)

logistics,
hardware, RAM,
programmatic

(h) Are the final reliability predictions using piece part 9.c(6)(h)

hardware, RAM, stress technique complete, and do they meet all specified
programmatic reliability performance requirements?

(i) Are the final maintainability predictions complete, and 9.c(6)(i)

logistics, do they meet all specified maintainability performance
hardware, RAM,
programmatic requirements?

(j) Are the final BIT assessments complete, and do they 9.c(6)(j)
logistics,
hardware, RAM, meet all specified BIT performance requirements?
programmatic

(k) Are the final thermal, vibration, and shock analyses 9.c(6)(k)
logistics, complete, and do they accurately reflect the anticipated
hardware,
programmatic operational environment?

(l) Is the final derating analysis complete, and does it 9.c(6)(l)

logistics,
hardware, eliminate overstressed components?
programmatic

(m) Have lessons learned been addressed, and 9.c(6)(m)

logistics,
hardware, implemented where applicable?
programmatic

(n) Are trade studies complete and implemented where 9.c(6)(n)

logistics,
hardware, applicable?
programmatic

(o) Has RAM risk assessment been completed, and 9.c(6)(o)

hardware, RAM,
logistics, risk potential mitigation provided?

CDR Page 56 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.c(6)(p)
n
(p) Have test methodologies and metrics for RAM
T&E, RAM, requirements been defined and are they concurrent with
logistics the methodology / metrics from OT?

(7) Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) and 9.c(7)

hardware, risk,
programmatic, Spectrum Supportability
interoperability

(a) Does the CPD address spectrum certification 9.c(7)(a)

hardware,
compliance, spectrum supportability, host nation approval,
programmatic, the control of E3, and safety issues regarding the Hazards
interoperability of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO)?

(b) Have the appropriate electromagnetic spectrum 9.c(7)(b)

hardware, requirements been approved to support a Milestone C
programmatic,
interoperability decision?

(c) Has the system design taken into account any 9.c(7)(c)
limitations or restrictions on Radio Frequency (RF)
hardware, spectrum use contained in the Military Communications-
programmatic,
interoperability
Electronics Board (MCEB) approved design guidance
recommendations?

(d) Have the results of the Integrated Topside Design 9.c(7)(d)

hardware, (shipboard term) analysis / study been received and
programmatic,
interoperability incorporated into the overall acquisition strategy?

(e) Have all of the E3 interface specifications of MIL-STD- 9.c(7)(e)

461E and MIL-STD-464A been adequately verified and
addressed prior to production drawing release?

(NOTE: This includes electrical bonding, Precipitation static

hardware,
(P-static), Electrostatic Discharge (ESD), subsystem EMI
programmatic, (including COTS and NDI), intra-system EMC, inter-system
interoperability EMC and High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF), lightening
effects (direct and indirect), radiation hazards (HERO,
HERP and HERF), TEMPEST and Electromagnetic Pulse
(EMP) effects, and life cycle E3 hardening.)

(f) Have the conclusions and recommendations of the E3 9.c(7)(f)

hardware,
IPT or Electromagnetic Compatibility Advisory Board
programmatic, (EMCAB) been incorporated into the final system design
interoperability and/or E3 risks appropriately addressed?

(g) Has the E3 development (flight worthiness) testing and 9.c(7)(g)

hardware, EMI qualification demonstration successfully occurred or
programmatic,
interoperability has it been scheduled?

(h) Does the program schedule allow adequate time to 9.c(7)(h)

hardware, risk,
programmatic, correct EMI deficiencies prior to production start?
interoperability

(8) Have survivability requirements and program established 9.c(8)

HSI, hardware, goals been successfully met and incorporated into the
programmatic system design?

CDR Page 57 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.c(9)
n
(9) Have quality and producibility considerations been
T&E, HSI,
hardware, PQM, addressed throughout the supply chain?
logistics, risk,
programmatic

(a) Has the manufacturing plan been updated to reflect 9.c(9)(a)

changes in short term and long term Full Rate Production
HSI, hardware, (FRP) requirements including the time phasing of all
PQM, logistics,
programmatic
resource requirements (e.g., personnel, machines, tooling,
measurement system, supply chain, etc.)?

(b) Has the manufacturing plan been updated to reflect 9.c(9)(b)

HSI, hardware,
PQM, logistics, changes to the defect variation prevention program?
programmatic

(c) Has the manufacturing plan been updated to reflect 9.c(9)(c)

HSI, hardware, changes to manufacturing processes that have defined
PQM, logistics,
programmatic yield levels and have been validated?

(d) Has the manufacturing plan been updated to reflect 9.c(9)(d)

HSI, T&E, changes to environmental stress screening to precipitate

hardware, latent, intermittent or incipient defects, or flaws introduced
logistics, PQM,
programmatic during the manufacturing process?

(e) Have updates to the corrective action system been 9.c(9)(e)

PQM, risk,
hardware made?

(f) Have process capability and quality metrics been 9.c(9)(f)

PQM, risk,
hardware updated?

(g) Have supplier management programs been updated 9.c(9)(g)

PQM, risk,
hardware and are key suppliers in place?

(h) Is the program clearly controlling and recording design 9.c(9)(h)

PQM, risk,
hardware, and other changes originating with suppliers?
programmatic

PQM, risk, (i) Are supplier quality program plans finalized? 9.c(9)(i)
hardware

(j) Has all of the documentation necessary to produce 9.c(9)(j)

PQM, risk,
hardware articles in conformance with design been updated?

(k) Is the variability reduction program (continuous 9.c(9)(k)

PQM, risk,
hardware improvement) in place?

(l) Is there appropriate monitoring by the contractor of all 9.c(9)(l)

PQM, risk,
hardware, changes not requiring Government approval?
programmatic

(10) System safety activities 9.c(10)

hardware,
logistics, HSI,
technology, risk,
programmatic

(a) Has a system safety program, to include interaction 9.c(10)(a)

logistics, risk,
hardware, HSI with systems engineering, been established?

CDR Page 58 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.c(10)(b)
n
(b) Have program systems safety requirements and goals
hardware, been successfully achieved per MIL-STD-882 at an optimal
logistics, HSI,
programmatic level?

(c) Have program hazards identified through the system 9.c(10)(c)

hardware, safety initiatives been mitigated or have actions to
logistics, HSI,
programmatic eliminate those hazards been put in place?

(d) Have system safety design requirements been 9.c(10)(d)

specified and legacy systems, subsystems, and
logistics, risk, components been analyzed and incorporated into the
hardware, HSI
design requirements as appropriate?

(e) Are hazard risk and assessment criteria specified for 9.c(10)(e)

logistics, risk, operating and support personnel, facilities, and the weapon
hardware, HSI system?

(f) Is the hazard analysis performed during the design 9.c(10)(f)

logistics, risk, process to identify and categorize hazards, including

hardware, HSI hazardous materials and associated processes?

(g) Is corrective action taken to eliminate or control the 9.c(10)(g)

logistics, risk,
hardware, HSI hazards, or to reduce the hazard to an acceptable level?

(h) Is a closed-loop hazard tracking system implemented? 9.c(10)(h)

logistics, risk,
hardware, HSI

(i) Is Weapon System Explosive Safety Review Board 9.c(10)(i)

logistics, risk,
hardware, HSI approval obtained as appropriate?

(j) If lasers are involved, has the Lasers Safety Review 9.c(10)(j)
hardware, HSI Board been consulted?

(k) Do all systems containing energetics comply with 9.c(10)(k)

logistics, risk,
hardware, HSI insensitive munitions criteria?

(11) Have aeromechanics considerations been addressed? 9.c(11)

hardware,
programmatic

hardware, (12) Have structures considerations been addressed? 9.c(12)

programmatic

hardware, (13) Have materials considerations been addressed? 9.c(13)

programmatic

(14) Have mass properties considerations been addressed? 9.c(14)

hardware,
programmatic

d. Have software considerations been addressed? 9.d

risk, T&E,
software, (All available software questions can be accessed by pressing
programmatic, the "Software" button in Row 11, Column C at the beginning of
interoperability
this checklist.)

T&E, hardware, e. Test and Evaluation (T&E) 9.e

programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

CDR Page 59 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.e(1)
n T&E, hardware
(1) T&E equipment

(a) Has test unique equipment for each test aircraft been 9.e(1)(a)
T&E, hardware identified?

(b) Is the mechanical and electrical design sufficiently 9.e(1)(b)

T&E, hardware mature for this phase of the program?

(c) Has the design installation been coordinated with the 9.e(1)(c)
T&E, hardware appropriate aircraft design groups?

(d) Have the data processing system design and facility 9.e(1)(d)
T&E requirements been finalized?

(e) Are all vendors for instrumentation and data processing 9.e(1)(e)
T&E hardware and software under contract?

(2) T&E Equipment Design 9.e(2)

T&E, hardware

(a) Is the mechanical and electrical design of test-unique 9.e(2)(a)

equipment sufficiently mature for this phase of the
T&E, hardware
program?

(b) Are the data processing system requirements for the 9.e(2)(b)
T&E test solidified?

T&E, (3) Is the detailed design testable? 9.e(3)

programmatic

(4) Are there plans in place to cover verification via other 9.e(4)
T&E,
programmatic means as required (analysis, simulation, etc.)?

(5) Is there buy-in among all stakeholders as to these 9.e(5)

T&E,
programmatic approaches?

f. Configuration Management 9.f

software, logistics,
programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Are all software configuration items and databases under 9.f(1)
software, logistics,
programmatic configuration management control and frozen?

g. Has funding been considered? 9.g

programmatic

h. Have obsolescence issues been addressed? 9.h

programmatic

i. If applicable, has shipboard interface / integration been 9.i

hardware,
programmatic considered?

j. Has platform diagnostics integration been addressed? 9.j

programmatic

software, k. Computer / software CIs 9.k

hardware 0 0 0 0 0

(1) For computer / software CIs, is there sufficient detail to 9.k(1)

software,
hardware enable coding and testing to begin?

CDR Page 60 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.l
n
l. Overall System
hardware,
technology,
logistics, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) For the overall system, and for each CI, the following 9.l(1)
hardware,
technology,
system constraints (system budgets) should be addressed as
logistics, risk, applicable:
programmatic,
interoperability

(a) Have physical interface requirements been considered 9.l(1)(a)

hardware, in the detailed design? Have proper tradeoffs been made?
programmatic,
interoperability

(b) Is the CARD consistent with the product baseline and 9.l(1)(b)
hardware,
programmatic do cost estimates reflect the CARD content?

(c) Has development cost been considered in the detailed 9.l(1)(c)

programmatic design?

(d) Have production cost budgets been established and 9.l(1)(d)

programmatic have these been considered in the detailed design?

(e) Have operations and support costs been considered in 9.l(1)(e)

programmatic the detailed design?

(f) Have weight budgets been established for all CIs? 9.l(1)(f)
hardware,
programmatic

(g) Has CI weight and its impact of overall system weight 9.l(1)(g)
hardware,
programmatic been considered and properly traded?

(h) Has volume budget been considered and properly 9.l(1)(h)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(i) Has CI volume impact been considered and properly 9.l(1)(i)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(j) Has power budget been considered and properly 9.l(1)(j)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(k) Has CI power impact been considered and properly 9.l(1)(k)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(l) Has cooling budget been considered and properly 9.l(1)(l)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(m) Has CI cooling impact been considered and properly 9.l(1)(m)

hardware,
programmatic traded?

(n) Have the requirements for technology insertion and 9.l(1)(n)

hardware, system growth been allocated to the CIs and reflected in
technology,
programmatic the detailed design?

CDR Page 61 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.l(1)(o)
n
(o) Has risk been considered at the CI level?
risk, programmatic

(p) Do plans describe decision support analysis concerning 9.l(1)(p)

hardware, system modernization, technology insertion, block

technology upgrades, etc?

(2) Have the above requirements and constraints been 9.l(2)

captured in the product baseline (approved product
hardware, specifications) and traceable back through the updated
technology,
programmatic
allocated baseline and functional baselines to the system
specification and CDD / CPD?

m. Interoperability 9.m
hardware, RAM,
interoperability 0 0 0 0 0

(1) Have shipboard interface / integration been addressed? 9.m(1)

hardware,
interoperability

(2) Has platform diagnostics integration been addressed? 9.m(2)

hardware, RAM,
interoperability

n. Human Systems Integration (HSI) 9.n

training, logistics,
T&E, hardware,
HSI, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Has the program employed an HSI process in the 9.n(1)

HSI,
programmatic development of current design?

(2) Human systems engineering 9.n(2)

HSI, hardware

(a) Have human integration design issues been addressed 9.n(2)(a)

HSI, hardware and implemented as part of the current design?

(b) Do the program human-machine-interface concepts 9.n(2)(b)

conform to Human Factors Engineering (HFE) standards in
HSI, hardware MIL-STD-1472 and American Standard of Testing
Materials (ASTM) 1166?

(c) Does the system design meet or exceed the human 9.n(2)(c)
systems engineering requirements appropriate for the
HSI, hardware
system?

(d) Does the system design adequately address aviation 9.n(2)(d)

HSI, hardware life support, escape and survivability requirements?

(3) Habitability 9.n(3)

HSI, hardware

(a) Does the system design adequately address habitability 9.n(3)(a)

engineering requirements appropriate to the overall
HSI, hardware
system?

HSI, training, (4) Training and Training Support 9.n(4)

logistics, T&E

CDR Page 62 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.n(4)(a)
n
(a) Does MP&T planning adequately sequence tasks and
HSI, training, events to assure personnel are trained to operate and
logistics, T&E maintain the system during IOT&E?

(b) Are training requirements reflected in the LRFS for 9.n(4)(b)

HSI, training, course and materials development, factory training,

logistics training devices and equipment?

o. Computer Resources 9.o

training, logistics,
software,
hardware, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic

(1) Has a computer and software security plan, including 9.o(1)

logistics, software safety, been developed?

(2) Are computer and software products and technical data 9.o(2)
and the supporting infrastructure outlined through an IDE
logistics, software, concept of operations that supports the total life cycle
technology
management of associated product?

(3) Have software functional requirements and associated 9.o(3)

logistics, software interfaces been defined?

(4) Has the functional baseline for software been 9.o(4)

programmatic,
software established?

(5) Has the gap analysis been performed on candidate COTS 9.o(5)
logistics, software software to identify functionality shortfalls?

(6) Have the requirements for system firmware and software 9.o(6)
logistics, software documentation been identified and procured?

(7) Has a software configuration management plan been 9.o(7)

software,
hardware, developed?
programmatic

(a) Is there a software Configuration Control Board (CCB)? 9.o(7)(a)

software,
programmatic

(b) Does both the Government and the developer 9.o(7)(b)

software,
programmatic participate in the software CCB?

(c) What are the criteria for making changes to the system, 9.o(7)(c)
software,
hardware, allocated, and product baselines?
programmatic

(d) Are the impacts on the program's cost and schedule 9.o(7)(d)
software, considered when changes are made to the system,
hardware,
programmatic allocated or program baselines?

(e) What are the criteria for approving, disapproving, 9.o(7)(e)

software, opening, closing, deferring, etc., defects against software

programmatic work products (documents and software)?

CDR Page 63 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 9.o(7)(f)
n
(f) How is it ensured that defect corrections are not lost in
software,
programmatic subsequent software work product releases?

(g) How is it ensured that the correct versions of the 9.o(7)(g)

different software work products are associated with each
other?
software,
Example: How do we ensure that the correct version of the
programmatic software requirements, software design, software source,
software executables and software test procedures are all
associated?

(8) Have measures of effectiveness for software been 9.o(8)

software,
programmatic developed for systems demonstration?

(9) Has the SSA been designated and have personnel 9.o(9)
logistics, software,
training training and facility requirements been identified?

(10) Have the software testing requirements been identified 9.o(10)

logistics, software, and integrated into the overall system test program?
T&E,
programmatic

(11) How does the TEMP address testing of computer 9.o(11)

software,
hardware, T&E, hardware and software?
programmatic

(12) Have requirements for system firmware and software 9.o(12)

software,
hardware, documentation been identified and procured?
programmatic

(13) Has a software development plan been developed and 9.o(13)

logistics, software does it reflect program milestones?

(14) Can and has the software maturity been measured? 9.o(14)
logistics, software

(15) Have required software data rights been obtained? 9.o(15)

logistics, software

CDR Page 64 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 10
n
10. System Verification
hardware, T&E,
programmatic 0 0 0 0 0

a. Does the Requirements Verification Matrix exist and does it 10.a

hardware,
programmatic accurately reflect the CDD / CPD requirements?

b. Is the detailed design of each CI consistent with the 10.b

hardware, T&E,
programmatic subsystem test planning and approach?

c. Is the detailed design of each CI consistent with the system 10.c

hardware, T&E,
programmatic test planning and approach?

CDR Page 65 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 11
n
11. Program Risk Assessment
hardware, risk,
T&E, training,
logistics, PQM, 0 0 0 0 0
HSI, technology,
programmatic

a. Has a risk management program been established to include 11.a

risk, T&E, PQM,
training, HSI, both Government and contractor participation and sharing of
technology, risks, as appropriate?
programmatic

b. Have risk items in the detailed design been defined and 11.b
hardware, risk analyzed?

c. Is the risk assessment process tightly coupled with the 11.c

technical effort and reflective of the technical risks inherent in
hardware, risk
the detailed design?

d. Has the risk assessment addressed future risks to 11.d

risk, T&E, training, developmental test, operational test, training, and production /
PQM, HSI,
hardware fielding of the system?

e. Is there adequate buy-in among the technical team as to 11.e

software,
hardware, risk, risks and mitigations?
technology

f. Is the technical risk assessment being shared at all levels of 11.f

software, PQM,
technology, risk, the program team?
programmatic

g. Have supportability and logistics risk items been defined, 11.g

risk, logistics,
programmatic analyzed, and included in the Program Risk Assessment?

h. Have cost and schedule impacts for supportability and 11.h

logistics risk mitigation been documented and identified in the
risk, logistics
LRFS?

i. T&E risks 11.i

risk, T&E,
hardware, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Is there an understanding of the technical risks 11.i(1)

risk, T&E,
hardware, associated with the T&E plan as it stands now?
programmatic

(2) Is there a method for tracing T&E costs to specific 11.i(2)

risk, T&E,
programmatic capabilities?

CDR Page 66 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 12
n
12. Certification and Legal Requirements
hardware, T&E,
HSI, logistics,
PQM, training,
software, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability

a. Statutory and regulatory requirements 12.a

logistics, T&E,
HSI, training,
technology,
hardware, 0 0 0 0 0
software, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Have appropriate statutory and regulatory information 12.a(1)

logistics, T&E,
HSI, training, requirements from Enclosure (3) of DoD Instruction 5000.2
technology, been presented or complied with?
hardware,
software, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

b. Service and Platform Specific Requirements 12.b

logistics, T&E,
HSI, training,
technology,
software, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Have Service and platform specific requirements been 12.b(1)

logistics, T&E,
HSI, training, achieved and complied with?
technology,
software, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

(2) Have all appropriate software requirements been 12.b(2)

logistics, T&E,
HSI, training, achieved and complied with?
technology,
software, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

c. Flight Certification 12.c

training, logistics,
T&E, HSI,
hardware,
software, PQM, 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

(1) Have the appropriate Service flight clearance procedures 12.c(1)

hardware,
logistics, T&E, been complied with, and has a flight clearance been issued?
HSI, training,
technology,
software, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

(2) If appropriate, have all critical safety items and critical 12.c(2)
hardware,
logistics, T&E, application items been identified?
HSI, training,
software, PQM,
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

CDR Page 67 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 12.c(3)
n
(3) Have critical characteristics associated with critical safety
hardware,
logistics, T&E, items been identified?
HSI, training,
software, PQM,
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

(4) Have the critical safety items been linked to the process 12.c(4)
logistics, T&E,
HSI, training, that produces or controls them?
software, PQM,
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability

CDR Page 68 of 78
a
Q
g
u
g
e
e
s
d
t Special Technical
i Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
o 13
n
13. Completion / Exit Criteria
HSI, PQM,
hardware, T&E,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

a. Have all draft RFAs been signed off and has an acceptable 13.a
risk, HSI,
programmatic level of program risk been ascertained?

b. Were the proper technical disciplines represented at the 13.b

HSI,
programmatic review?

c. If applicable, were all required flight clearance performance 13.c

HSI, monitors involved and do they concur with the detailed design?
programmatic

d. Typical Exit Criteria include: 13.d

HSI, PQM,
hardware, T&E,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic

(1) Does the status of the technical effort and design indicate 13.d(1)
hardware, T&E,
technology, HSI, OT success (operationally suitable and effective)?
programmatic

(2) Can the detailed design, as disclosed, satisfy the CDD? 13.d(2)
hardware,
technology, HSI,
programmatic

(3) Are adequate processes and metrics in place for the 13.d(3)
hardware, risk,
technology, HSI, program to succeed?
programmatic
High Priority

(4) Are the risks known and manageable for DT / OT? 13.d(4)
risk, HSI,
hardware, T&E,
programmatic

(5) Is the program schedule executable within the anticipated 13.d(5)

risk, HSI,
hardware, cost and technical risks?
programmatic

(6) Are the system requirements understood to the level 13.d(6)

HSI, hardware,
programmatic appropriate for this review?

HSI, (7) Is the program properly staffed? 13.d(7)

programmatic

(8) Is the program Non-Recurring Engineering requirement 13.d(8)

HSI, hardware,
programmatic executable with the existing budget?

(9) Is the detailed design producible within the production 13.d(9)

PQM, HSI,
hardware, budget?
programmatic

(10) Has the detailed design satisfied human systems 13.c(10)

hardware, HSI,
programmatic engineering requirements?

CDR Page 69 of 78
 “Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review Name of the program being reviewed / date

Program Risk Assessment Checklist
0

Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer

Risk Character
R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applicable
Special Technical
Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
 “Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review

Program Risk Assessment Checklist

Risk Character
R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applic
Special Technical
Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U
(1) Is the program ready to conduct a CDR based upon CDR
hardware, T&E,
software, risk, entry criteria vice a pre-determined schedule date?
logistics, HSI, Y
technology,
programmatic
Success”

ew Name of the program being reviewed / date

ecklist
0

Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer

sk Character
vailable, NA = Not Applicable
NA Item Comments / Mitigation

Y
1.b(1)
 “Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review

Program Risk Assessment Checklist

Risk Character
R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applic
Special Technical
Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U
Success”

ew Name of the program being reviewed / date

ecklist
0

Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer

sk Character
vailable, NA = Not Applicable
NA Item Comments / Mitigation
 “Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review

Program Risk Assessment Checklist

Risk Character
R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applic
Special Technical
Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U
Success”

ew Name of the program being reviewed / date

ecklist
0

Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer

sk Character
vailable, NA = Not Applicable
NA Item Comments / Mitigation
 “Systems Engineering for Mission Success”

Critical Design Review Name of the program being reviewed / date

Program Risk Assessment Checklist
0

Name / Code / Technical Specialty of reviewer

Return to CDR
0

Risk Character
R = Red, Y = Yellow, G = Green, U = Unknown / Unavailable, NA = Not Applicable
Special Technical
Interest Discipline Legend: R Y G U NA Item Comments / Mitigation
1
training, RAM,
1. Timing / Entry Criteria
hardware, T&E,
software, HSI,
logistics, risk, 0 1 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic
0
2
T&E, RAM, 2. Planning
training, software,
HSI, logistics,
PQM, technology, 0 0 0 0 0 0
risk,
programmatic,
0 interoperability
3
hardware, 3. Program schedule
software, T&E,
logistics, risk, 0 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability
0

HSI, PQM, 4. Management metrics relevant to life cycle phase 4

hardware, RAM,
software, EVM,
logistics, T&E, 0 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
0 interoperability

5. Program Staffing 5
HSI, PQM,
logistics, T&E,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic
0
 6. Process Review 6
training, RAM,
hardware, HSI,
PQM, software,
T&E, logistics, 0 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability
0

7. Product Support 7
training, RAM,
hardware, risk,
software, T&E,
PQM, logistics, 0 0 0 0 0 0
HSI, technology,
programmatic,
interoperability
0

8. Requirements Management 8
logistics,
hardware, RAM,
software, T&E,
technology, HSI, 0 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic,
interoperability
0

9. System Detailed Design 9

logistics, T&E,
software, RAM,
HSI, hardware,
PQM, training, 0 0 0 0 0 0
technology, risk,
programmatic,
interoperability
0

hardware, T&E, 10. System Verification 10

programmatic 0 0 0 0 0 0
0

11. Program Risk Assessment 11

hardware, risk,
T&E, training,
logistics, PQM, 0 0 0 0 0 0
HSI, technology,
programmatic
0

12. Certification and Legal Requirements 12

hardware, T&E,
HSI, logistics,
PQM, training,
software, risk, 0 0 0 0 0 0
technology,
programmatic,
interoperability
0

13. Completion / Exit Criteria 13

HSI, PQM,
hardware, T&E,
technology, risk, 0 0 0 0 0 0
programmatic
0

Totals 0 1 0 0 0