00-35D-54.pdf

TO 00-35D-54

TECHNICAL MANUAL

USAF DEFICIENCY REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, AND

RESOLUTION (DRI&R)

THIS MANUAL SUPERSEDES TO 00-35D-54, DATED 15 APRIL 2021.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A - Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. PA Case Number AFMC 04-334. Submit recommended changes or problems with this Technical Order to 558 CBSS/GBHA, 3001/1AC4106C, Tinker AFB OK 73145-3041.

PUBLISHED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

15 AUGUST 2022

Dates of issue for original and changed pages are:

Original. . . . . . . .0 . . . . . 15 August 2022

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS PUBLICATION IS 106, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:

Page *Change No. No.

Page *Change No. No.

Page *Change No. No.

Title A i - v vi Blank 1-1 - 1-13 1-14 Blank 2-1 - 2-6 3-1 - 3-15 3-16 Blank 4-1 - 4-13 4-14 Blank 5-1 - 5-6 6-1 - 6-6 7-1 - 7-11 7-12 Blank 8-1 - 8-8 A-1 - A-3 A-4 Blank B-1 - B-2 C-1 C-2 Blank D-1 - D-8

TO 00-35D-54

LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES

INSERT LATEST CHANGED PAGES. DESTROY SUPERSEDED PAGES.

NOTE The portion of the text affected by the changes is indicated by a vertical line in the outer margins of the page. Changes to illustrations are indicated by shaded or screened areas, or by miniature pointing hands.

* Zero in this column indicates an original page.

A USAF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

1 REPORTING CRITERIA, SYSTEM DE-

SCRIPTION, AND PROGRAM

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.2 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.3 SCOPE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.4 APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1.5 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.6 DEFICIENCY REPORTING

CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.6.1 Deficiency Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

1.7 DEFICIENCY CATEGORIZATION

AND PRIORITIZATION. . . . . . 1-4

1.8 KEY DRI&R

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.8.1 Program Manager (PM) at the Sys-

tems Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.8.2 Chief/Lead Engineers . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.8.3 Chief/Lead Engineers . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.8.4 Originator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.8.5 Originating Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.8.6 Screening Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.8.7 Action Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.8.8 Support Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.8.9 Center SPOCO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.8.10 Program enrollment “Authorizing

Point Of Contact” (APOC) . . . . 1-9

1.8.11 MAJCOM/NASA Functional

Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.8.12 HQ AFMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.8.13 The Clearing House . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.9 JOINT DEFICIENCY REPORT

SYSTEM (JDRS)

DATABASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.9.1 JDRS Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.9.2 Isolated Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

1.10 PERFORMANCE METRICS AND

COMPLIANCE

CHECKLISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

1.11 CROSS COMPONENT

REPORTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

1.12 GOVERNMENT INDUSTRY DATA

EXCHANGE PROGRAM

(GIDEP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

1.13 PARTNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

Chapter Page

1.14 DEPOT MAINTENANCE INTER-

SERVICE SUPPORT AGREE-

MENTS (DMISA) . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

1.15 HAZARD REVIEW BOARD PRO-

GRAM MANAGER

(HRBPM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

1.16 PQDR EXHIBIT CREDIT

POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12

1.16.1 PQDR Customer Policy. . . . . . . . . 1-12

1.16.2 Credit Reversal Procedures . . . . . . 1-12

1.16.3 Credit Reversal and Flying Hour

Reimbursement . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.17 WAIVER OF JDRS

REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.18 RECOMMENDING

IMPROVEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.19 DRI&R ADVISORY

COUNCIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.19.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.19.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.19.3 Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

2 DEFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION AND

REPORTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 CRITERIA, CATEGORY, AND

PRIORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.3 ORIGINATOR

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.4 ORIGINATING POINT

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.4.1 Credit Reversal Procedures . . . . . . 2-5

2.5 DISPUTING DR RESOLUTION

ACTIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.6 PROCESS SATISFACTION

FEEDBACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

3 DEFICIENCY REPORT PROCESSING, IN-

VESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION . . . . 3-1

3.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.2 SCOPE AND

APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.3 DRI&R MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . 3-1

3.3.1 Key Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.4 DR RECEIPT, ASSIGNMENT AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . 3-2

3.4.1 Receiving the Deficiency

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3.4.2 Misrouted Reports/Transfer of Ac-

tion Point Responsibility . . . . . . 3-3 i

3.4.3 DRs on DLA Procured Items . . . . . 3-4

3.4.4 Critical Safety Item (CSI)

Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

3.4.5 Mishap/HAP (MHAP) DRs . . . . . . 3-5

3.4.6 Manual JDRS Entry . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.4.7 Validating the Deficiency

Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.4.8 Cross-Component Reporting . . . . . 3-6

3.4.9 Materiel Improvement Projects

(MIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.4.10 Parent Child relationship in

JDRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.5 AIR FORCE REPAIR ENHANCE-

MENT PROGRAM (AFREP)

AND LATERAL SUPPORT

DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.5.1 The Air Force Repair Enhancement

Program (AFREP) . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

3.5.2 Lateral Support Procedures . . . . . . 3-7

3.6 WARRANTY MANAGER

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.7 DEFICIENCY REPORT INVESTI-

GATIONS, EXHIBIT DISPOSI-

TION, AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . 3-8

3.7.1 Action Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.7.2 Exhibit Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.7.3 Exhibit Not Requested . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.7.4 Exhibit Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.7.5 Support Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.7.6 Suspended Condition . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

3.7.7 Critical or Major

Nonconformance . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.7.8 Investigation Results . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.7.9 Investigation Completion . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.8 MIP REVIEW BOARDS

(MIPRB). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.8.1 MIPRB Membership. . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.8.2 MIPRB Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.8.3 MIPRB Responsibilities . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.9 RESOLUTION OF

DISAGREEMENTS . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.10 DR STATUS, RESOLUTION AND

CLOSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

3.11 CREDIT REVERSAL

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14

3.12 DR/MIP RESPONSE/RESOLU-

TION PERFORMANCE

METRICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

4 EXHIBIT HANDLING AND

PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.2 APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

Chapter Page

4.3 ESTABLISHING THE EXHIBIT

PROCESSING SYSTEM. . . . . . 4-1

4.4 EXHIBIT CONTROL, MARKING,

AND HANDLING . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.5 ORIGINATOR EXHIBIT

PROCESSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

4.6 ORIGINATING POINT EXHIBIT

PROCESSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.7 EXHIBIT HOLDING AND SHIP-

PING ACTIVITY PROCESSING

- BASE LEVEl . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.8 ACTION POINT EXHIBIT

RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . 4-8

4.9 ALC RECEIVING AND STORAGE

ACTIVITY EXHIBIT

PROCESSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.10 SUPPORT POINT EXHIBIT

PROCESSING. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

5 REPORTING, INVESTIGATING AND RE-

SOLVING TEST AND EVALUATION

DEFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND

APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2 KEY RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.1 Program Manager (PM), Chief De-

velopmental Tester/Test Manager

(CDT/TM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.2 Program Manager (PM). . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.3 Integrated Test Team (ITT) . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.4 Lead Developmental Test Organiza-

tion (LDTO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.5 Operational Test Organization

(OTO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.2.6 DT&E/OT&E Test Director(s) . . . . 5-1

5.2.7 Lead Operating Command . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2.8 Other Stakeholder

Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.3 DEFINING DEFICIENCY RE-

PORTING PROCEDURES IN

THE ITT CHARTER . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.3.1 Integrated Test Team. . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.4 DOCUMENTING AND REPORT-

ING TEST & EVALUATION

DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.4.1 JDRS Online Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.4.2 LDTO/OTA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.4.3 Watch Item (WIT) . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

5.4.4 Exhibit Handling and

Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.5 T&E DEFICIENCY

MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

TO 00-35D-54

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

ii

6 ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION DEFICIENCY

REPORTING AND RESOLUTION. . . . . . 6-1

6.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.2 SCOPE AND

APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.3 REPORTING ACCEPTANCE IN-

SPECTION RESULTS . . . . . . . 6-1

6.3.1 Originator Responsibilities . . . . . . . 6-1

6.3.2 Originating Point

Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

6.4 RESOLVING ACCEPTANCE IN-

SPECTION

DISCREPANCIES . . . . . . . . . . 6-4

6.5 FINAL RESOLUTION AND AI

REPORT CLOSING . . . . . . . . . 6-5

7 TECHNICAL COORDINATION PROGRAM

(TCP) AND INTERNATIONAL ENGINE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (IEMP)

PARTICIPANTS DEFICIENCY REPORT-

ING AND INVESTIGATING

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 PURPOSE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2 SCOPE AND

APPLICABILITY . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.2.1 Deficiency Reporting Tools . . . . . . 7-1

7.3 SECURITY

CLASSIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.4 SUPPLY DESCREPANCY REPORT

(SDR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.5 KEY RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . 7-2

7.5.1 Originating Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.5.2 TCP/IEMP Screening Point . . . . . . 7-2

7.5.3 Action Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.6 SUBMITTING ORGANIZATION

TASKS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.6.1 Originator Responsibilities . . . . . . . 7-3

7.6.2 Originating Point

Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.6.3 Transmitting DR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4

7.6.4 Originating Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.6.5 Resolution of Disagreements . . . . . 7-5

7.7 DEFICIENCY REPORT PROCESS-

ING, INVESTIGATION AND

RESOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.7.1 The TCP/IEMP Screening

Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

7.7.2 Action and Support Points . . . . . . . 7-6

7.7.3 Exhibit Disposition, Technical Inves-

tigation and Analysis . . . . . . . . 7-6

7.8 DR/MIP RESPONSE/RESOLU-

TION PERFORMANCE . . . . . . 7-8

Chapter Page

7.9 TCP OFFICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8

8 AIR FORCE BAD ACTOR PROGRAM . . . . 8-1

8.1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 BAD ACTOR SELECTION

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.3 IDENTIFICATION

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.4 DEPOT MAINTENANCE DATA

DOCUMENTATION

SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.5 ACCOUNTABILITY AND/OR

SUPPLY PROCEDURES . . . . . 8-2

8.6 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AC-

TIVITY TO

MAINTENANCE. . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.7 ENGINEERING FAILURE ANALY-

SIS PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.8 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

APPENDIX A APPLICABLE TECHNICAL

ORDERS AND SUPPORTING

DIRECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A.1 APPLICABLE TECHNICAL

ORDERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B METRICS AND COMPLI-

ANCE CHECKLISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

B.1 PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

B.1.1 Why Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 B.1.2 What We Will Measure . . . . . . . . . B-1 B.1.3 Data Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

APPENDIX C MATERIEL CONDITION

CODE Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

C.1 PROCESSING MATERIEL IN

CONDITION CODES “Q” . . . . C-1

C.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities . . . . . . . C-1 C.1.2 Documentation Requirement . . . . . C-1 C.1.3 Timeframes for Review. . . . . . . . . C-1

APPENDIX D ABBREVIATIONS AND

DEFINITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

D.1 ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

D.2 DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4

TO 00-35D-54

TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Number PageTitle

4-1 DD Form 2332, Product Quality Defi-ciency Report Exhibit (Front) . . . . . . . 4-4

4-2 DD Form 2332, Product Quality Defi-ciency Report Exhibit (Back) . . . . . . . 4-5

4-3 DD Form 1575, Suspended Tag - Materiel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13

5-1 T&E DR Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 8-1 Tracking of Bad Actors Through Data

Analysis (Flow 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Number PageTitle

8-2 Tracking of Bad Actors (Flow 2) . . . . . . 8-5 8-3 Unit-level Identification of Bad Actors

(Flow 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6 8-4 Depot Identification of Bad Actors (Flow

4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7 8-5 Resolution of Bad Actors (Flow 5) . . . . . 8-8

LIST OF TABLES

Number PageTitle

1-1 Attributes That May Affect Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1-2 DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1-3 Conditions Not To Be Reported . . . . . . . 1-6 3-1 DR Validation Actions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 4-1 How to Complete a DD Form 2332 for

Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4-2 Required Entries For DD FORM 1575

Condition Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12

Number PageTitle

6-1 Discrepancy Classification Guide . . . . . . 6-3 7-1 AFLCMC (AFSAC) Supply Discrepancy

Report (SDR) Office Addresses. . . . . . 7-6 7-2 Deficiency Report POC Addresses for TCP

Participants Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8 7-3 Deficiency Report POC Addresses for

IEMP Participants Only . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 7-4 Countries Supported by TCP/IEMP . . . . . 7-9 7-5 How to Complete a DD Form 2332. . . . . 7-10 B-1 DR Response/Resolution Timelines . . . . . B-1 iv

INTRODUCTION

1 PURPOSE.

This technical manual provides clear and concise instruc-tions for the safe and effective operation and maintenance of centrally-acquired and managed Air Force military systems and end items. The procedures in this TO are designed to implement the Air Force TO Vision: “to provide user-friendly, technically accurate, secure and up-to-date digital technical data at the point of use that is acquired, sustained, distributed and available in digital format from a single point of access for all technical data users.” For the purpose of this technical order, the Major Commands (MAJCOMS) are Air Combat Command, Air Mobility Command, Air Force Special Op-erations Command, Air Education and Training Command, Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command, Air Force Space Command, Global Strike Command and Air Force Materiel Command.

2 USE OF THIS MANUAL.

The table of contents indicates chapter, paragraph, title, and page numbers to facilitate location of information. Illustra-tions, tables, and diagrams, when applicable, are located throughout the publication to supplement the text material. A list of illustrations and a list of tables indicate the number, title, and location.

2.1 Methods and Procedures. When consulting this TO

for procedural information (for example, ordering TOs), the reader should consider reading the appropriate chapter from the major chapter heading down to the detailed subparagraph of interest. This will provide the user with context and com-mon information associated with the detailed procedure.

However, the table of contents includes direct links to sub-paragraphs for experienced users. The TO is also text search-able, should the user require information on a specific topic.

3 DEFINITIONS.

The word SHALL is used to express a provision that is bind-ing. The words SHOULD and MAY are used when it is necessary to express non-mandatory provisions. WILL may be used to express a mandatory declaration of purpose or when it is necessary to express a future event.

4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.

All abbreviations and acronyms used in this manual are in accordance with ASME Y14.38M, Abbreviations and Acro-nyms for Use on Drawings and Related Documents. Use acronym list from Appendix D.

NOTE

Acronyms used only once in the TO are not in-cluded in this list.

5 LIST OF RELATED PUBLICATIONS.

These publications contain information in support of this technical manual. Use List of Related Publications from Ap-pendix A.

v/(vi blank)

CHAPTER 1

REPORTING CRITERIA, SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, AND PROGRAM

RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 AUTHORITY.

a. AF/A4LM is the approval authority for this Technical Order (TO).

b. This Technical Order (TO) implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1, INTREGRATED LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT, Air Force Instruction (AFI)

63-145, MANUFACTURING AND QUALITY MAN-

AGEMENT. The processes of this TO ensure compli-ance with federal acquisition requirements in accor-dance with Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 101-26-8, discrepancies or deficiencies in Gen-eral Service Administration (GSA) or Department of Defense (DOD) shipments, material, or billings and supports Defense Logistics Agency Regulation

(DLAR) 4155.24, PRODUCT QUALITY DEFI-

CIENCY REPORT (PQDR) PROGRAM (Inter-Service Product Quality Deficiency Report).

1.2 PURPOSE.

a. The Deficiency Reporting, Investigating and Resolu-tion (DRI&R) process provides the Air Force with a means of identifying deficiencies, resolving those defi-ciencies within the bounds of the contractual require-ments, program resources and the appropriate accep-tance of risk for those deficiencies that cannot be resolved in a timely manner. An equally important pur-pose of the DRI&R process is to provide feedback to the warfighters and other users in the field on the reso-lution of Deficiency Report(s) (DRs) originated by their organizations. Thus, the transmittal of system de-ficiency reports from user Major Commands (MAJ- COMs) to the program office provides the Program Manager (PM) with the information needed to assess the operational risk posed by deficiencies identified on their systems and empowers them to account for the Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E) of their systems.

NOTE

A DR is considered resolved when a root cause analysis has been identified and corrective/preven-tative actions have been initiated and disposition instructions for exhibits are provided. The DR re-port is updated in Joint Deficiency Reporting Sys-tem (JDRS) with the appropriate status code based upon the identified corrective action, i.e. Closed Awaiting Funds, Closed Awaiting Fix Verification, Closed Awaiting ECP, etc. JDRS will be updated, even after resolution has been identified, when any significant activity occurs with regards to the rec-ommended resolution.

b. DRI&R drives the continuous improvement of system quality. Through process standardization, it seeks to reduce waste. It allows investigative findings to be ap-plied to reappearances, e.g., in the occurrence of the same common item deficiency on different systems.

c. DRI&R reduces total ownership costs by identifying a system’s deficiencies early in its life cycle. Deficiency reporting is supported during Test and Evaluation (T&E) activity, and, as a result, promotes the early discovery of defects.

d. Through the use of the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), DRI&R improves system safety, par-ticularly on service-common critical safety items.

JDRS is used commonly between the Air Force and the aviation communities of the Navy and Coast Guard, providing a platform for robust information sharing, and facilitates process standardization between the ser-vices.

e. For reporting Suspect Counterfeit Material (SCM), HQ AFMC/A4R functions as the Air Force Suspect Coun-terfeit Materiel (SCM) Gatekeeper and ensures a closed loop reporting process for SCM notices.

1.3 SCOPE.

a. The DRI&R processes promote the ability to identify and correct deficiencies before they impact mission ca-pability. Successful implementation drives resolution decisions, tempered by total ownership cost, to correct, mitigate, and/or accept risk of conditions impacting OSS&E. Success is based upon two premises: 1) the user/operator/maintainer reports deficiencies on their assigned systems; and, 2) the program manager estab-lishes a proactive process to analyze data and act ac-cordingly to implement solutions. Specific objectives include:

1-1

• Correction of deficiencies is done within the program’s available resources based on risk and in concert with the lead MAJCOM.

• The sharing of information with the joint com-munity enables users to be more proactive when deficiencies are identified and to work towards enterprise level corrections, when appropriate.

• Identify and resolve Test & Evaluation, Product Quality, and Engineering Investigation deficien-cies throughout a product or system lifecycle.

• Commence deficiency reporting and resolution processes as early as possible, but no later than system Critical Design Review. Early monitor-ing and oversight of system anomalies pro-motes the most effective technical and program-matic decisions for reducing total ownership cost.

• Integrate deficiency analysis and resolution pro-cesses within quality, systems engineering, and overall lifecycle management plans to identify root cause and prevent or mitigate recurrence.

• Obtain cost credit, replacement, and/or contrac-tual remedy for procurement, overhaul, or re-pair-related quality deficiencies resulting from poor workmanship, nonconformance to appli-cable specifications, drawings, standards, pro-cesses or other technical requirements.

• Assess risk to OSS&E and investigate as nec-essary to resolve Engineering Investigation de-ficiencies resulting from poor reliability and maintainability.

• Provide historical collection of deficiency data to share knowledge with authorized activities responsible for design, development, safety, purchasing, production, supply, maintenance, contract administration, and other functions.

b. The processes of this TO support AFI 63-101/20-101, INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE SYSTEMS MANAGE-

MENT, providing standardized methods, supporting databases, tools, and procedures to identify, investigate, and resolve deficiencies. During Test and Evaluation, deficiency reporting identifies deficiencies or proposed enhancements at a point in development where changes may be made at a significantly reduced cost. Through-out operational deployment and sustainment, this TO provides a method to formally communicate user/op-erator identified deficiencies or proposed enhancements to managing activities for analysis and resolution.

c. The data captured by deficiency reporting may also be used as a source of information (with analysis), to re-flect the past performance history of either a contractor or organic entity. In addition, organizations such as the Air Force Office of Special Investigation and the De-fense Criminal Investigation Service may use this data to support or conduct investigations.

d. Prime Contractor Deficiency Reporting. Contractors shall report product quality deficiencies on (USAF) government furnished property (GFP) or equipment

(GFE).

e. For reporting Suspect Counterfeit Material (SCM), HQ AFMC/A4R functions as the Air Force Suspect Coun-terfeit Materiel (SCM) Gatekeeper and ensures a closed loop reporting process for SCM notices.

1.4 APPLICABILITY.

a. DRI&R processes apply to all USAF and contractor members and organizations who acquire, test, operate, or sustain USAF owned or managed military or weapon systems (Aeronautical, Air Armament, Space, and Command and Control and Information Systems), their sub and support systems; as well as vehicles, clothing, and textiles.

b. Participation in this process is extended to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which operates systems for which the USAF has program management responsibility. Through letter of agree-ment, NASA Aeronautical organizations are provided capability to perform cross-component deficiency re-porting IAW this TO and DLAR 4155.24.

c. NASA will perform originator, originating point and functional manager responsibilities consistent with the requirements identified in this TO.

NOTE

When operations are co-located at a USAF loca-tion, the tenant NASA organization will coordi-nate with the host organization to de-conflict and document exhibit handling support requirements.

d. The procedures of this TO apply regardless of the con-tracting methodology employed. Contracting clauses such as warranty special provisions or contractor logis-tics support shall not preclude the implementation of these procedures for a system or component.

e. Prime Contractor Deficiency Reporting. Contractors shall report product quality deficiencies on USAF gov-ernment furnished property (GFP) or government fur-nished equipment (GFE). The preferred method of re-porting is directly to the USAF JDRS. The DRI&R team offers process training and technical support available at no cost to contractors choosing to use this method of submission. Contractors not using JDRS shall coordinate submissions through the applicable Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) rep-

1-2 resentative. Prime contractor or prime vendor identi-fied deficiencies for material on non USAF govern-ment furnished materiel procured directly through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or other suppliers.

(1) These deficiencies shall be reported directly to the DLA or the offending supplier according to contractual or other agreements.

(2) These procedures apply to all agencies and con-tractors involved in USAF test and evaluation on Air Force managed systems, programs, and items.

f. Joint systems under test, operated and/or maintained by the USAF will use these procedures to ensure com-monality of reporting and resolution. The individual program office or lead service may establish specific reporting and resolution requirements over and above the requirements of this TO as long as those require-ments are seamless to USAF users.

(1) At the beginning of OT, all deficiencies discov-ered will be entered into JDRS; do not enter clas-sified DRs into JDRS. For classified DRs refer to paragraph 1.9.2.3, JDRS-C (Classified).

(2) For system managed by another component, as-signed Action Points will then forward the DR using the cross-component reporting requirements established in DLAR 4155.24.

g. Countries participating in the Deficiency Reporting program use the procedures under Chapter 7 of this TO and include those involved in the Technical Coor-dination Program (TCP), International Engine Manage-ment Program (IEMP), Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Security Assistance (SA), and European Participating Air Forces (EPAF) governed by Air Force Manual, AFMAN 16-101, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND

SECURITY ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT, and/or Letters of Offer Acceptance (LOA), and individual FMS case provisions, Multi-National Configuration Management Plan, and IEMP Agreements.

NOTE

This TO aligns with AFI 21-118, IMPROVING

AIR AND SPACE EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY

AND MAINTAINABILITY; AFI 99-103, CAPA-

BILITIES-BASED TEST AND EVALUATION;

AFOTECMAN 99-101, OPERATIONAL TEST

PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES; AFI 23-101,

AIR FORCE MATERIEL MANAGEMENT ; and the Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). See SO300-BT-010 for GIDEP informa-tion.

1.5 METHODOLOGY.

a. The JDRS basic system capability is centrally funded and available without cost to all programs and sys-tems. JDRS shall remain under government cognizance in order to realize the benefits derived from common-ality of reporting and to remain uninhibited from out-side influences.

b. The use of contractor operated and maintained defi-ciency data systems may augment JDRS capability, if required, but may not replace JDRS as the official USAF deficiency repository. When used to compliment the JDRS capability the program manager shall keep JDRS current and shall provide the same management visibility as established in Chapter 3 of this TO.

1.6 DEFICIENCY REPORTING CRITERIA.

Deficiencies that impact the OSS&E of systems or equip-ment in development, test, or deployment shall be reported through JDRS to the appropriate managing activity. Table 1-1 provides examples of attributes to consider when identi-fying deficiencies and/or recommended enhancements. Defi-cient conditions shall be identified according to criteria and report type and categorized according to their impact to mis-sion and/or safety. See Table 1-2, DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination.

Table 1-1. Attributes That May Affect Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness

Compatibility Malfunction Design Quality Difficulty of operation or maintenance Reliability Effectiveness Repairability Environmental Safety Expense of operation or maintenance Security Fidelity/conformity of technical publications Suitability Human Factors Survivability Integration Training fidelity Interoperability Undocumented features Logistics supportability Utility Maintainability Vulnerability

1-3

1.6.1 Deficiency Types. Although often overlapping in

process and similar in workflow, three separate and distinct deficiency types are covered by this technical order. These include: (1) Product Quality, (2) Acceptance Inspection De-ficiency, (3) Engineering Investigation, and (4) Test & Evalu-ation deficiencies Product Quality and Engineering Investi-gation deficiencies are reported on USAF weapon system or end items, as well as on government owned, managed, or furnished products and equipment. They are also reported against contractor owned and managed assets when those assets are used to support a USAF weapon system or end item. During government conducted or managed Test & Evaluation, deficiencies shall be written when identified against a government stated need, performance parameter, or an impact to safety, suitability or effectiveness. Test & Evalu-ation procedures apply on an item or system under acquisi-tion, regardless whether it is government or contractor owned. The types of USAF report designations include:

1.6.1.1 Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) . These

are reports of deficiency (on hardware or software) resulting from an initial failure, defect, or nonconforming condition discovered on a new, newly repaired, revised, installed or overhauled product typically when that product is placed in service. PQDRs include failures that result after the item was placed in service that are suspected as latent defects or qual-ity escapes resulting from poor workmanship, nonconfor-mance to applicable specifications, drawings, standards, pro-cesses or other technical requirements. PQDRs also include the reporting of failures that occur on contractually pre-scribed warranted items within the warranty period.

1.6.1.2 Acceptance Inspection Deficiency Report (AIDR).

This report type is used to identify discrepancies discovered during acceptance inspections performed on aircraft, engines, engine modules and major assemblies and support systems, and equipment. Reportable discrepancies are those that are attributable to non-conformance to applicable specifications during manufacture, repair, modification, or maintenance as-sociated with the general work requirements and contract specifications of the work performed. See Chapter 6 for ad-ditional guidance.

1.6.1.3 Engineering Investigation (EI). This report type is

used to report an unacceptable condition or request failure analysis for conditions such as systems compatibility issues, mishap analysis, component/item failures, anomalous behav-ior or to provide recommendations for improvements to ex-isting capabilities (enhancement) and software/application failures. EIs may include aging system issues or trends, im-provement recommendations or requests for investigation to determine the root cause or condition that induced the fail-ure. An EI should include trending observations and/or other observations to substantiate the condition being reported as well as impacts to the OSS&E of a system, subsystem or component. EIs may also be used as recommendations for inclusion as agenda items in improvement working groups or forums, or submitted to notify appropriate POCs that a discrepant part may be installed in the NHA or End Item.

NOTE

DULL Sword is a reporting flagword identifying a nuclear weapon safety deficiency, including mis-haps not falling into the accident or incident cat-egories but meeting criteria in AFMAN 91-221, WEAPONS SAFETY INVESTIGATIONS AND

REPORTS. A DULL SWORD report may be re-quired for some EIs. Report DULL SWORDS in accordance with AFMAN 91-221.

1.6.1.4 Test and Evaluation Deficiencies (T&E DR). These

are reports of deficiency (on AF materiel or product) identi-fied during government or contractor-conducted/managed test and evaluation. T&E DRs are those discovered during devel-opmental test and evaluation (DT&E), or those that fail to meet operational requirements as measured during opera-tional test and evaluation (OT&E).

1.6.1.5 These include, but are not limited to, deficiencies

that are the result of incompatibility or failures as measured against government stated need, performance parameter, re-quired capabilities, applicable specifications, procedures, or test equipment and may include recommendations for en-hancements or an impact to safety, suitability or effective-ness.

1.7 DEFICIENCY CATEGORIZATION AND PRIORI-

TIZATION.

The deficiency category (CAT) and associated risk priority is used to capture the severity of the condition by relative im-portance and the urgency of response. The submitting orga-nization will be diligent in the categorization of deficiencies, particularly when describing support equipment, subsystems, reliability, and maintainability deficiencies. Each deficiency must be considered for its overall OSS&E impact.

a. Category (CAT) I deficiencies are those which may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational ill-ness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capa-bilities of the using organization; or result in a produc-tion line stoppage.

NOTE

The SAF/AQX preferred term of Program Man-ager is used in place of the Single Manager throughout this TO and is intended to also repre-sent the responsibilities of the System Program Director, and if delegated by the PM, the Supply Chain Manager.

(1) CAT I deficiencies require the immediate atten-tion and response of the system Program Man-ager and Chief/Lead Engineer to mitigate risk and/or limit/resolve mission impact, therefore strict application of CAT I criteria is essential. If

1-4 a CAT I condition is noted or suspect, assess safety, mission, or operational impact and include a detailed statement outlining the safety, mission, or operational impact to the system or end item.

(2) If any doubt exists concerning the category of a report between CAT I and CAT II, it will be co-ordinated with the wing safety office and/or other authority to aid in assessment of the deficiency’s impact. Any CAT I that may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness or, if uncor-rected, may cause major loss or damage to equip-ment or a system shall be reported to the Safety Office.

NOTE

To minimize risk and/or limit/resolve mission im-pact, suspected CAT I deficiencies shall be vali-dated as such by the appropriate authority level within the reporting organization (Chief of Main-tenance, Safety Office, or other authority (identi-fied by the Chief of Maintenance or Safety Office, or other authority within the reporting organiza-tion and reported within 24 hours of discovery.

This will be sent to all applicable organizations (MAJCOM, Program Manager, Safety Offices) by the most expeditious means available.

(3) Report CAT I deficiencies immediately to appli-cable organizations (MAJCOM, Program Man-ager, safety offices) within 24 hours by telephone, facsimile, email or other expedited methods, as required. Due to the critical nature of CAT I DRs, the use of telecommunications facilities are au-thorized during MINIMIZE (MINIMIZE is the reduction of record and voice telecommunications traffic in an emergency, follow-up documentation to the PM/CE must occur within 2 days).

b. CAT II deficiencies are those that impede or constrain successful mission accomplishment (impacts OSS&E but does not meet the safety or mission impact criteria of a CAT I deficiency).

c. Table 1-2 is provided to assist the Originating activity in determining that the report category and impact are consistent and provide the recommended priority.

d. The PM will consider the DR’s initial priority as a statement of the tester and/or operator impact, but the PM is responsible for specifying each DR’s final pri-ority in view of existing program factors and budget constraints, and will address programmatic issues and resolution actions accordingly.

e. Conditions that do not meet the criteria of a CAT I or CAT II report should be investigated by the identifying organization to determine if other reporting avenues are available. These may include, but are not limited to, product and component improvement working group action items as well as transportation and supply discrepancy reporting. Refer to Table 1-3, Conditions Not To Be Reported, for deficiencies which are ex-cluded from the provisions of this TO.

f. If an open DR has not been actively investigated within 12 months of the initial deficiency reporting, the rea-son for delayed actions or not funding the investiga-tion shall be noted in JDRS and the DR closed with the status of “Closed-Acceptable Risk”. The risk asso-ciated with that DR must be formally accepted by the individual in the chain of command with the authority to accept a risk at that level.

g. A Deficiency Report is considered resolved when a root cause has been identified and corrective/preventa-tive actions have been initiated and disposition instruc-tions for exhibits are provided. Any OSS&E risk asso-ciated with this DR is mitigated.

Table 1-2. DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination

Annotate the DR CAT (I or II) and the corresponding priority. Submit a CAT I DR and assign the corresponding prior-ity when a condition:

CAT I Priority Impact

Emergency If uncorrected, may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness and no workaround is known; or, if uncorrected, may cause major loss or damage to equip-ment or a system and no workaround is known; or, prevents the accomplishment of an essential capability or critically restricts OSS&E, to include required interaction with other mission critical platforms or systems; and no acceptable workaround is known.

Urgent Adversely affects an essential capability or negatively impacts operational safety, suit-ability, or effectiveness and no acceptable workarounds are known or adversely affects technical, cost or schedule risks to the project or to life cycle support of the system, or, results in a production line stoppage and no acceptable workaround is known.

1-5

Table 1-2. DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination - Continued

When the condition does not meet the safety or mission impact criteria of a CAT I report, submit a CAT II DR with the corresponding priority when the condition:

CAT II Priority Impact

Urgent Adversely affects an essential capability or negatively impacts operational safety, suit-ability, or effectiveness and adequate performance is achieved through significant com-pensation or acceptable workaround and or adversely affects technical, cost, or sched-ule risks to the project or to life cycle support of the system, but an acceptable workaround is known.

Routine Does not affect an essential capability but may result in user/operator inconvenience or annoyance. Adequate performance is achieved through minimal compensation. Results in inconvenience or annoyance for development or maintenance personnel, but does not prevent the accomplishment of the task. Adequate performance is achieved through minimal compensation. Any other effect, i.e., enhancements having little or no impact to OSS&E under current requirements.

NOTES:

1. Careful consideration should be given in assigning the category and corresponding priority recommendation to accu-rately define the deficiency’s impact.

2. Prior to test, the test team and program office shall ensure understanding and consensus of priority definitions. If re-quired, definitions may be further defined to support the individual test program and defined in the local operating pro-cedures.

3. T&E deficiency category and priority will be determined by the test director. Subsequent changes may occur only with consensus of primary Materiel Improvement Project Review Board (MIPRB) members (program office, lead oper-ating command, and applicable test director). See AFI 99-103, CAPABILITIES-BASED TEST AND EVALUATION for additional T&E information.

4. Originators/Originating Points should consider and document factors such as cost, schedule and performance risks;

availability of spares; difficulty of operation or maintenance, repair, or replacement; system redundancy; associated trends; secondary failures or damages; and environmental impacts among other possible factors.

5. Workarounds refer to approved/authorized alternate procedures which could include, but are not limited to: manual processes, order of task accomplishment, more restrictive or intensive procedures, and the use of back-up or redundant systems or processes, etc.

Table 1-3. Conditions Not To Be Reported

Do not submit a DR when the following conditions are

NOTED:

Applicable Directive or FORM

1. Unsatisfactory condition is attributable to improper pack-aging and handling. Items found properly packaged with no apparent damage to the container, but the item is damaged.

Condition attributable to or responsibility of the shipper, de-tected by the receiving activity. This includes conditions such as shortages, overages, erroneous material, unaccept-able substitute, duplicate shipments, missing tags or labels, or expired shelf life.

Report IAW SF 364, Supply Discrepancy Report (DLAI

4140.55, SECNAVINST 4355.18A, AFJMAN 23-215,

AFI 23-101.

2. Deficiencies in medical supplies and equipment listed in Military Medical Stock List SL-6500.

Report IAW AFI 23-101.

3. Substitute items, these items would meet the fit and func-tion of the original equipment manufacture item (be ap-proved by the AF) when the original item is unavailable.

Report using DD FORM 1608 - Unsatisfactory Material Report - (Subsistence). See DLAR 4155.3.

4. Proposed new allowance documents and changes to exist-ing allowance documents.

Report IAW AFI 23-101.

5. Established administrative systems, procedures, methods, publications, and forms.

Report by letter, through channels to the office of primary responsibility.

6. Real property and real property installed equipment. Report IAW AFH32-9007.

7. Pricing deficiencies (e.g., zero overpricing). Report AFPAM 23-117.

1-6

Table 1-3. Conditions Not To Be Reported - Continued

Do not submit a DR when the following conditions are

NOTED:

Applicable Directive or FORM

8. Processing and handling of civilian and military sugges-tions.

Report IAW AFI 38-401.

9. Deficiencies in items procured from commercial off- the-shelf local purchase/repair, directly from GSA or a commer-cial vendor, when such items are designated in a supply catalog or stock list for base procurement. This does not apply to components of special purchase equipment (Air Force or Technical Service designated as those items which are procured through other services.)

Resolve locally through the base contracting officer or if an IMPAC purchase, IAW AFI64-117, AIR FORCE

GOVERNMENT-WIDE PURCHASE CARD (GPC)

PROGRAM. For items procured directly from GSA, re-port discrepancies directly to Service Center at 1-800- 488- 3111 or via the GSA website at http://www.gsa.gov.

10. Specific deficiencies in technical orders. Publication change processes apply to specific change requests against specific procedures. A DR may be submitted to identify sys-temic TO issues involving the acquisition process of publica-tions or TO fidelity/conformity issues impacting OSS&E.

Report IAW AFTO Form 22, Technical Order Improve-ment Report and Reply, or AFTO Form 27, Preliminary Technical Order (PTO) Publication Change Request (PCR)/TO Verification Record/Approval (TO 00-5-1, AF

TECHNICAL ORDER SYSTEM).

11. Deficiencies in flight manuals. Report IAW AF Form 847, RECOMMENDATION FOR CHANGE OF PUBLICATION (Flight Publications).

12. Deficiencies in supply catalogs or stock lists. Report IAWAFI 23-101.

13. Carrier caused transportation type discrepancies for the purpose of adjusting property and inventory records of dam-aged freight for action by the transportation con tracting of-ficer.

Report IAW SF 361, Transportation Discrepancies Re-port, (DODM 4140.25).

14. The need for new (not enhancement) operational capa-bilities.

Submit IAW DODI 5000.02 AF SUP1. AF Form 1067 and AFI 63-131, MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT.

15. CAT II deficiencies concerning tools procured through GSA Tools Commodity Center, including all Standardization and Control of Industrial Quality Tools (SCIT).

Report tool discrepancies directly to the National Cus-tomer Service Center at 1-800-488-3111 or via the GSA web site at http://www.gsa.gov.

1.8 KEY DRI&R RESPONSIBILITIES.

The following provides a summary of primary DRI&R posi-tions and their key responsibilities.

• Web-based process training for DRI&R is provided on the DRI&R Training SharePoint Site. These courses provide an overview of functional role and process based tasks to include explanations of the program’s intent to resolve deficiencies or ensure that risks associated with identified deficiencies are properly identified.

• Participants in the DRI&R process must complete the training found on the DRI&R Training Share- Point Site, which is appropriate to their DRI&R role.

1.8.1 Program Manager (PM) at the Systems Group.

The program manager is responsible for implementing DRI&R IAW this TO and consistent with the preservation of OSS&E. PMs shall ensure active oversight and awareness of DRI&R status and, depending on the category (CAT) of DRs, the PM shall either accept the risk or recommend the accep-tance of risk to the appropriate level of the chain of com-mand prior to closing a DR. The PM shall ensure members, of their assigned units, receive role-based DRI&R training as defined in bullet points above. PMs are responsible for main-taining visibility of DRs reported against their system re-gardless of where the DR is assigned for resolution. PMs manage program metrics/trends, program compliance, and advocate DRI&R improvement. The PM may delegate these duties and responsibilities and it shall be in writing and maintained in organization’s files. Additionally Action Points representing the PM typically perform and/or oversee the response to, and resolution of DRs.

1.8.1.1 Where dissent exists between the originating orga-

nization (e.g., MAJCOM or Test & Evaluation organization) and the responsible materiel management organization (e.g., program office), the following conditions apply:

• If a disagreement exists as to the report category, seek consensus with the Originating Point/DRB prior to changing the report category. If unable to reach agreement, the PM, under advisement of the MIPRB and Originating Point, if not a permanent member, will establish the report category. Evalua-tion of risk to operations includes the originating organization’s risk statement. Responsible materiel

1-7 management organization may close the deficiency as “Closed - Accepted Risk” subject to Resolution of Disagreements Paragraph 3.9.

• Evaluation of risk to operations will be added to official engineering documentation.

1.8.1.2 Operational risk contributed by deficiencies will

be reviewed at acquisition executive reviews, critical design reviews, MAJCOM reviews, and/or T&E reviews.

1.8.1.3 Program Managers shall complete the DRI&R

Computer Based Training (CBT) Curriculum for Program Managers and Chief Engineers as a minimum.

1.8.2 Chief/Lead Engineers. The designated system

Chief (in support of the PM) has technical responsibility, accountability and authority for all technical activities throughout the operational life of the program. Chief/Lead Engineers are integral members of the DRI&R process for their system. The Chief/Lead Engineer supports the PM-es-tablished DRI&R processes, specifically providing technical oversight and direction for risk mitigation and deficiency resolution. The Chief/Lead Engineer ensures active oversight and awareness of DR status, training, program metrics/trends, program compliance, and advocates DRI&R improvement.

The Chief/Lead Engineer ensures that individuals perform-ing investigations understand program intent and the basis of root cause analysis. The Chief/Lead Engineer also ensures that corrective actions are taken to prevent deficiency recur-rence, and recommends/approves closing actions.

1.8.3 Chief/Lead Engineers. Chief/Lead Engineers shall

complete the DRI&R Computer Based Training (CBT) Cur-riculum for Program Managers and Chief Engineers as a minimum.

1.8.4 Originator. The Originator is any individual who

identifies conditions that limit or restrict an item or system from fulfilling its intended purpose. The Originator discovers the deficiency, identifies its impact, and initiates reporting and exhibit processes, securing the exhibit, as established within their organization or group.

1.8.5 Originating Point. The Originating Point is a func-

tion typically located within the organization’s quality, safety, or resource management office that has overall DRI&R pro-cess management responsibility for the submitting organiza-tion.

1.8.5.1 Responsibilities include:

• Promoting the DRI&R web-based training avail-able, at the DRI&R Training SharePoint Site, to en-sure knowledge of criteria and processes.

• Interacting with Originators to ensure that DRs are valid, accurate, and complete, If not, either further substantiate or return to the Originator.

NOTE

If the report…