00-35D-54.pdf

TO 00-35D-54

TECHNICAL MANUAL

USAF DEFICIENCY REPORTING, INVESTIGATION, AND

RESOLUTION

(ATOS)

THIS PUBLICATION SUPERSEDES TO 00-35D-54, DATED 1 OCTOBER 2009.

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

1 NOVEMBER 2011

INSERT LATEST CHANGED PAGES. DESTROY SUPERSEDED PAGES.

LIST OF EFFECTIVE 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.

Dates of issue for original and changed pages are:

Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . 1 November 2011

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES IN THIS MANUAL IS 102, CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING:

Page *Change Page *Change Page *Change No. No. No. No. No. No.

Title A i - iii iv Blank 1-1 - 1-14 2-1 - 2-6 3-1 - 3-6 4-1 - 4-17 4-18 Blank 5-1 - 5-10 6-1 - 6-13 6-14 Blank 7-1 - 7-8 8-1 - 8-6 A-1 - A-3 A-4 Blank B-1 B-2 Blank C-1 - C-8

*Zero in this column indicates an original page

A USAF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

1 REPORTING CRITERIA, SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, 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

1.7 Deficiency Categorization and Prioritization....................................................................................................1-5

1.8 Key DRI&R Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................1-9

1.9 Joint Deficiency Report System (JDRS) Database ........................................................................................1-11

1.10 Performance Metrics and Compliance Checklists..........................................................................................1-12

1.11 Cross Component Reporting ...........................................................................................................................1-12

1.12 Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) ..............................................................................1-12

1.13 Materiel Safety Program Manager (MSPM) ..................................................................................................1-12

1.14 PQDR Exhibit Credit Policy...........................................................................................................................1-12

1.15 Waiver of JDRS Requirements.......................................................................................................................1-13

1.16 Recommending Improvements........................................................................................................................1-13

1.17 DRI&R Advisory Council...............................................................................................................................1-13

2 REPORTING, INVESTIGATING AND RESOLVING TEST AND EVALUATION DEFICIENCIES....................2-1

2.1 Purpose, Scope and Applicability .....................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Key Responsibilities ..........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Defining Deficiency Reporting Procedures in the ITT Charter.......................................................................2-2

2.4 Documenting and Reporting Test & Evaluation Deficiencies.........................................................................2-3

2.5 T&E Deficiency Management ..........................................................................................................................2-5

3 DEFICIENCY IDENTIFICATION AND REPORTING ...............................................................................................3-1

3.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Criteria, Category and Priority..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.3 Originator Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................3-1

3.4 Originating Point Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................3-3

3.5 Disputing DR Resolution Actions ....................................................................................................................3-6

3.6 Process Satisfaction Feedback ..........................................................................................................................3-6

4 DEFICIENCY REPORT PROCESSING, INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION ..................................................4-1

4.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Scope and Applicability ....................................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 DRI&R Management.........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.4 DR Receipt, Assignment and Acknowledgement ............................................................................................4-3

4.5 Air Force Repair Enhancement Program (AFREP) and Lateral Support Deficiencies ..................................4-7

4.6 Warranty Manager Responsibilities ..................................................................................................................4-8

4.7 Deficiency Report Investigations, Exhibit Disposition, and Analysis.............................................................4-9

4.8 MIP Review Boards (MIPRB)........................................................................................................................4-12

4.9 Resolution of Disagreements ..........................................................................................................................4-13

4.10 DR Status, Resolution and Closing ................................................................................................................4-14

4.11 Credit Reversal Procedures .............................................................................................................................4-15

4.12 DR/MIP Response/Resolution Performance Metrics .....................................................................................4-16 i

5 TECHNICAL COORDINATION PROGRAM (TCP) AND INTERNATIONAL ENGINE MANAGE-

MENT PROGRAM (IEMP) PARTICIPANTS DEFICIENCY REPORTING AND INVESTIGATING

PROCEDURES ...........................................................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Scope and Applicability ....................................................................................................................................5-1

5.3 Security Classification.......................................................................................................................................5-1

5.4 Deficiency Reporting Criteria ...........................................................................................................................5-2

5.5 Key Responsibilities ..........................................................................................................................................5-2

5.6 Submitting Organization Tasks.........................................................................................................................5-2

5.7 Deficiency Report Processing, Investigation and Resolution ..........................................................................5-5

5.8 DR/MIP Response/Resolution Performance.....................................................................................................5-8

6 EXHIBIT HANDLING AND PROCESSING................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Applicability ......................................................................................................................................................6-1

6.3 Establishing the Exhibit Processing System.....................................................................................................6-1

6.4 Exhibit Control, Marking, and Handling..........................................................................................................6-1

6.5 Originator Exhibit Processing ...........................................................................................................................6-2

6.6 Originating Point Exhibit Processing................................................................................................................6-6

6.7 Exhibit Holding and Shipping Activity Processing - Base Level ...................................................................6-6

6.8 Action Point Exhibit Responsibilities...............................................................................................................6-8

6.9 ALC Receiving and Storage Activity Exhibit Processing .............................................................................6-10

6.10 Support Point Exhibit Processing ...................................................................................................................6-11

7 AIR FORCE BAD ACTOR PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Bad Actor Selection Procedures .......................................................................................................................7-1

7.3 Identification Procedures...................................................................................................................................7-1

7.4 Depot Maintenance Data Documentation Systems ..........................................................................................7-2

7.5 Accountability and/or Supply Procedures ........................................................................................................7-2

7.6 Engineering Analysis Activity to Maintenance................................................................................................7-2

7.7 Engineering Failure Analysis Procedures.........................................................................................................7-2

7.8 Engineering Analysis Guidelines ......................................................................................................................7-3

8 ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION DEFICIENCY REPORTING AND RESOLUTION..................................................8-1

8.1 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Scope and Applicability ....................................................................................................................................8-1

8.3 Performing Acceptance Inspections..................................................................................................................8-1

8.4 Reporting Acceptance Inspection Results ........................................................................................................8-2

8.5 Resolving Acceptance Inspection Discrepancies..............................................................................................8-5

8.6 Final Resolution and AI Report Closing ..........................................................................................................8-6

A METRICS AND COMPLIANCE CHECKLISTS.........................................................................................................A-1

A.1 Performance Management................................................................................................................................A-1

B MATERIEL CONDITION CODE Q............................................................................................................................. B-1

C ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................... C-1

C.1 Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................................... C-1 C.2 Definitions......................................................................................................................................................... C-5 ii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Number Title Page

2-1 T&E DR Process ......................................................................................................................................................2-6 6-1 DD Form 2332, Product Quality Deficiency Report Exhibit (Front) .....................................................................6-5 6-2 DD Form 2332, Product Quality Deficiency Report Exhibit (Back) .....................................................................6-5 6-3 DD Form 1575, Suspended Tag - Materiel ...........................................................................................................6-13 7-1 Tracking of Bad Actors Through Data Analysis (Flow 1) .....................................................................................7-4 7-2 Tracking of Bad Actors (Flow 2) ............................................................................................................................7-5 7-3 Unit-level Identification of Bad Actors (Flow 3)....................................................................................................7-6 7-4 Depot Identification of Bad Actors (Flow 4) ..........................................................................................................7-7 7-5 Resolution of Bad Actors (Flow 5)..........................................................................................................................7-8

LIST OF TABLES

Number Title Page

1-1 Attributes That May Affect Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness ....................................................1-4 1-2 DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination ....................................................................................................1-6 1-3 Conditions Not To Be Reported ..............................................................................................................................1-8 4-1 DR Validation Actions .............................................................................................................................................4-4 5-1 HQ AFSAC Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR) Office Addresses .......................................................................5-5 5-2 Deficiency Report Action Point Addresses for TCP Participants Only .................................................................5-8 5-3 Deficiency Report Action Point Addresses for IEMP Participants Only.............................................................5-10 5-4 Countries Supported by TCP/IEMP.......................................................................................................................5-10 6-1 How to Complete a DD Form 2332 for Exhibits ...................................................................................................6-4 6-2 Required Entries For DD FORM 1575 Condition Tags .......................................................................................6-12 8-1 Discrepancy Classification Guide ............................................................................................................................8-3 A-1 DR Response/Resolution Timelines........................................................................................................................A-2 iii/(iv blank)

CHAPTER 1

REPORTING CRITERIA, SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, AND PROGRAM

RESPONSIBILITIES

1.1 AUTHORITY.

1.1.1 AF/A4LMM is the approval authority for this TO.

1.1.2 This Technical Order (TO) implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 20-1/63-1, ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT, Air Force Instruction (AFI) 63-501, AIR FORCE ACQUISITION QUALITY PROGRAM, and Air Force Materiel Command Instruction (AFMCI) 63-510, DEFICIENCY REPORTING, INVESTIGATION AND RESOLUTION. The processes of this TO ensure compliance with federal acquisition requirements in accordance with Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, subpart 101-26-8, discrepancies or deficiencies in General Service Administration (GSA) or Department of Defense (DOD) shipments, material, or billings and supports Defense Logistics Agency Regulation (DLAR) 4155.24, PRODUCT QUALITY DEFICIENCY REPORT (PQDR) PROGRAM.

1.2 PURPOSE.

1.2.1 The DRI&R process provides the Air Force with a means of identifying deficiencies, resolving those deficiencies within the bounds of program resources and the appropriate acceptance of risk for those deficiencies that cannot be resolved in a timely manner. An equally important purpose of the DRI&R process is to provide feedback to the warfighters and other users in the field on the resolution of DRs originated by their organizations. Thus, the transmittal of system deficiency reports from user Major Commands (MAJCOMs) 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.

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

1.2.3 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.

1.2.4 Through the use of the Joint Deficiency Reporting System (JDRS), DRI&R improves system safety, particularly on service-common critical safety items. JDRS is used commonly between the Air Force and the aviation communities of the Navy, Army and Coast Guard, providing a platform for robust information sharing, and facilitates process standardization between the services.

1.3 SCOPE.

1.3.1 The DRI&R processes promote the ability to identify and correct deficiencies before they impact mission capability.

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 establishes a proactive process to analyze data and act accordingly to implement solutions. Specific objectives include:

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

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

1.3.1.3 Identify and resolve Test & Evaluation, Product Quality, and Engineering Investigation deficiencies throughout a product or system lifecycle.

1-1

1.3.1.4 Commence deficiency reporting and resolution processes as early as possible, but no later than system Critical Design Review. Early monitoring and oversight of system anomalies promotes the most effective technical and programmatic decisions for reducing total ownership cost.

1.3.1.5 Integrate deficiency analysis and resolution processes within quality, systems engineering, and overall lifecycle management plans to identify root cause and prevent or mitigate recurrence.

1.3.1.6 Obtain cost credit, replacement, and/or contractual remedy for procurement, overhaul, or repair-related quality deficiencies resulting from poor workmanship, nonconformance to applicable specifications, drawings, standards, processes or other technical requirements.

1.3.1.7 Assess risk to OSS&E and investigate as necessary to resolve Engineering Investigation deficiencies resulting from poor reliability and maintainability.

1.3.1.8 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.

1.3.2 The processes of this TO support AFI 63-1201, LIFE CYCLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, 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. Throughout operational deployment and sustainment, this TO provides a method to formally communicate user/operator identified deficiencies or proposed enhancements to managing activities for analysis and resolution.

1.3.3 The data captured by deficiency reporting may also be used as a source of information (with analysis), to reflect 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 Defense Criminal Investigation Service may use this data to support or conduct investigations.

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

1.4 APPLICABILITY.

1.4.1 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.

1.4.2 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 agreement, NASA Aeronautical organizations are provided capability to perform cross-component deficiency reporting IAW this TO and DLAR 4155.24.

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

1.4.4 When operations are co-located at a USAF location, the tenant NASA organization will coordinate with the host organization to de-conflict and document exhibit handling support requirements.

1.4.5 The procedures of this TO apply regardless of the contracting methodology employed. Contracting clauses such as warranty special provisions or contractor logistics support shall not preclude the implementation of these procedures for a system or component.

1.4.6 Prime Contractor Deficiency Reporting. Contractors shall report product quality deficiencies on USAF government furnished property (GFP) or government furnished equipment (GFE). The preferred method of reporting 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) representative.

1.4.6.1 Prime contractor or prime vendor identified deficiencies for material on non USAF government furnished materiel procured directly through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or other suppliers.

1-2

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

1.4.7 These procedures apply to all agencies and contractors involved in USAF test and evaluation on Air Force managed systems, programs, and items.

1.4.8 Joint systems under test, operated and/or maintained by the USAF will use these procedures to ensure commonality 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 requirements are seamless to USAF users.

1.4.8.1 During acquisition or sustainment, all deficiencies discovered will be entered into JDRS; do not enter classified DRs into JDRS.

1.4.8.2 For system managed by another component, assigned Action Points will then forward the DR using the cross-component reporting requirements established in DLAR 4155.24.

1.4.9 Countries participating in the Deficiency Reporting program use the procedures under Chapter 5 of this TO and include those involved in the Technical Coordination Program (TCP), International Engine Management 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.

1.4.10 This TO aligns with AFI 21-118, Improving Air and Space Equipment Reliability and Maintainability; AFI 99- 103, Capabilities Based Test and Evaluation; AFOTECMAN 99-101, OPERATIONAL TEST PROCESSES AND PROCE- DURES; AFMAN 23- 110, USAF Supply Manual; and the Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP). See SO300-BT-PRO-010 for GIDEP information.

1.5 METHODOLOGY.

1.5.1 The JDRS basic system capability is centrally funded and available without cost to all programs and systems. JDRS shall remain under government cognizance in order to realize the benefits derived from commonality of reporting and to remain uninhibited from outside influences.

NOTE

For users requiring access into JDRS, see the following for additional information: Department of Defense (DoD) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memorandum, subject: “Common Access Card Issuance Mandate,” September 25, 2003 Department of Defense (DoD) Chief Information Officer Memorandum, subject: “Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and Public Key Enabling (PKE) Implementation Update,” October 7, 2003.

1.5.2 The use of contractor operated and maintained deficiency 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 4 of this TO.

1.6 DEFICIENCY REPORTING CRITERIA.

1.6.1 Deficiencies that impact the OSS&E of systems or equipment 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 identifying deficiencies and/or recommended enhancements. Deficient conditions shall be identified according to criteria and report type and categorized according to their impact to mission and/or safety. See Table 1-2, DR Category (CAT) and Priority Determination.

1-3

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

1.6.2 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) Engineering Investigation, and (3) Test & Evaluation deficiencies. Product Quality and Engineering Investigation 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 & Evaluation procedures apply on an item or system under acquisition, regardless whether it is government or contractor owned. The types of USAF report designations include:

1.6.2.1 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, 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 quality escapes resulting from poor workmanship, nonconformance to applicable specifications, drawings, standards, processes or other technical requirements. PQDRs also include the reporting of failures that occur on contractually prescribed warranted items within the warranty period.

1.6.2.2 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, support systems, and equipment. Reportable discrepancies are those that are attributable to non-conformance to applicable specifications during manufacture, repair, modification, or maintenance associated with the general work requirements and contract specifications of the work performed. See Chapter 8 for additional guidance.

1.6.2.3 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, or to provide recommendations for improvements to existing capabilities (enhancement). EIs may include aging system issues or trends, improvement recommendations or requests for investigation to determine the root cause or condition that induced the failure.

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. The EI replaces the old Material Deficiency Report (MDR), and applies to the same conditions as the MDR was applied.

1-4

NOTE

DULL Sword is a reporting flagword identifying a nuclear weapon safety deficiency, including mishaps not falling into the accident or incident categories but meeting criteria in AFMAN 91-221. A DULL SWORD report may be required for some EIs. Report DULL SWORDS in accordance with AFMAN 91-221.

1.6.2.4 Test and Evaluation Deficiencies (T&E DR). These are reports of deficiency (on AF materiel or product) identified during government or contractor-conducted/managed test and evaluation. T&E DRs are those discovered during developmen-tal test and evaluation (DT&E), or those that fail to meet operational requirements as measured during operational test and evaluation (OT&E). These include, but are not limited to, deficiencies that are the result of incompatibility or failures as measured against government stated need, performance parameter, required capabilities, applicable specifications, proce-dures, or test equipment and may include recommendations for enhancements or an impact to safety, suitability or effectiveness.

1.7 DEFICIENCY CATEGORIZATION AND PRIORITIZATION.

1.7.1 The deficiency category (CAT) and associated risk priority is used to capture the severity of the condition by relative importance and the urgency of response. The submitting organization 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.

1.7.2 Category (CAT) I deficiencies are those which may cause death, severe injury, or severe occupational illness; may cause loss or major damage to a weapon system; critically restricts the combat readiness capabilities of the using organization; or result in a production line stoppage.

NOTE

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

1.7.2.1 CAT I deficiencies require the immediate attention and response of the system Program Manager and Chief/Lead Engineer to mitigate risk and/or limit/resolve mission impact, therefore strict application of CAT I criteria is essential. If 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.

1.7.2.2 If any doubt exists concerning the category of a report between CAT I and CAT II, it will be coordinated 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 uncorrected, may cause major loss or damage to equipment or a system shall be reported to the Safety Office.

NOTE

To minimize risk and/or limit/resolve mission impact, suspected CAT I deficiencies shall be validated as such by the appropriate authority level within the reporting organization (Chief of Maintenance, Safety Office, or other authority (identified by the Chief of Maintenance or Safety Office, or other authority within the reporting organization 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.

1.7.2.3 Report CAT I deficiencies immediately to applicable organizations (MAJCOM, Program Manager, 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 authorized 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).

1.7.3 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).

1.7.4 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.

1-5

1.7.5 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 priority in view of existing program factors and budget constraints, and will address programmatic issues and resolution actions accordingly.

1.7.6 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 excluded from the provisions of this TO.

1.7.7 If an open DR has not been actively investigated within 12 months of the initial deficiency reporting, the reason for delayed actions or not funding the investigation shall be noted in JDRS and the DR closed with the status of “Closed- Acceptable Risk”. The risk associated 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.

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 priority 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 equipment or a system and no workaround is known; or, prevents the accomplish-ment 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, suitability, 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.

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, suitability, or effectiveness and adequate performance is achieved through signifi-cant compensation or acceptable workaround and or adversely affects technical, cost, or schedule 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 inconve-nience or annoyance. Adequate performance is achieved through minimal compen-sation. Results in inconvenience or annoyance for development or maintenance personnel, but does not prevent the accomplishment of the task. Adequate per-formance is achieved through minimal compensation. Any other effect, i.e., en-hancements 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 accurately define the deficiency’s impact.

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

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 operating command, and applicable test director). See AFI 99-103, CAPABILITIES-BASED TEST AND EVALUA- TION for additional T&E information.

1-6

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

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.

1-7

Table 1-3. Conditions Not To Be Reported

Do not submit a DR when the following condi- Applicable Directive or FORM tions are noted:

1. Unsatisfactory condition is attributable to improper Report IAW SF 364, Supply Discrepancy Report (DLAI packaging and handling. Items found properly packaged 4140.55, SECNAVINST 4355.18A, AFJMAN 23-215, with no apparent damage to the container, but the item is AFMAN 23-110.

damaged. Condition attributable to or responsibility of the shipper, detected by the receiving activity. This in-cludes conditions such as shortages, overages, erroneous material, unacceptable substitute, duplicate shipments, missing tags or labels, or expired shelf life.

2. Deficiencies in medical supplies and equipment listed Report IAW AFMAN 23-110, Volume 1, part 1, chapter in Military Medical Stock List SL-6500. 5, section 5D.

3. Substitute items, these items would meet the fit and Report using DD FORM 1608 - Unsatisfactory Material function of the original equipment manufacture item (be Report - (Subsistence). See DLAR 4155.3.

approved by the AF) when the original item is unavaila-ble.

4. Proposed new allowance documents and changes to Report IAW AFMAN 23-110.

existing allowance documents.

5. Established administrative systems, procedures, meth- Report by letter, through channels to the office of primary ods, publications, and forms. responsibility.

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

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

8. Processing and handling of civilian and military sug- Report IAW AFI 38-401.

gestions.

9. Deficiencies in items procured from commercial off- Resolve locally through the base contracting officer or if the-shelf local purchase/repair, directly from GSA or a an IMPAC purchase, IAW AFI64-117. For items procured commercial vendor, when such items are designated in a directly from GSA, report discrepancies directly to the supply catalog or stock list for base procurement. This National Customer Service Center at 1-800-488-3111 or does not apply to components of special purchase equip- via the GSA website at http://www.gsa.gov.

ment (Air Force or Technical Service designated as those items which are procured through other services.)

10. Specific deficiencies in technical orders. Publication Report IAW AFTO Form 22, Technical Order Improve-change processes apply to specific change requests ment Report and Reply, or AFTO Form 27, Preliminary against specific procedures. A DR may be submitted to Technical Order (PTO) Publication Change Request identify systemic TO issues involving the acquisition (PCR)/TO Verification Record/Approval (TO 00-5-1, AF process of publications or TO fidelity/conformity issues Technical Order System).

impacting OSS&E.

11. Deficiencies in flight manuals. Report IAW AF Form 847, Recommendation For Change or Publication (Flight Publications).

12. Deficiencies in supply catalogs or stock lists. Report IAW AFMAN 23-110, Volume 1, part 1, chapter 7.

13. Carrier caused transportation type discrepancies for Report IAW SF 361, Transportation Discrepancies Report, the purpose of adjusting property and inventory records (DODM 4140.25).

of damaged freight for action by the transportation con tracting officer.

14. The need for new (not enhancement) operational ca- Submit IAW DODI 5000.2 AF SUP1.

pabilities.

1-8

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

Do not submit a DR when the following condi- Applicable Directive or FORM tions are noted:

15. CAT II deficiencies concerning tools procured Report tool discrepancies directly to the National Custom-through GSA Tools Commodity Center, including all er Service Center at 1-800-488-3111 or via the GSA web Standardization and Control of Industrial Quality Tools site at http://www.gsa.gov.

(SCIT).

1.8 KEY DRI&R RESPONSIBILITIES.

1.8.1 The following provides a summary of primary DRI&R positions and their key responsibilities.

1.8.1.1 Web-based process training for DRI&R is provided on the DRI&R Training Program Community of Practice (CoP).

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.

1.8.1.2 Participants in the DRI&R process must complete the training found on the DRI&R Training Program CoP, which is appropriate to their DRI&R role.

1.8.2 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 acceptance of risk to the appropriate level of the chain of command prior to closing a DR. The PM shall ensure members, of their assigned units, receive role-based DRI&R training as defined in paragraph 1.8.1.1. PMs are responsible for maintaining visibility of DRs reported against their system regardless of where the DR is assigned for resolution. PMs manage program metrics/trends, program compliance, and advocate DRI&R improvement. Further metric information can be found at the AFMC Logistics Information Center (see section A.1.4). 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.

1.8.2.1 Where dissent exists between the originating organization (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 chief engineer, may establish the report category. During T&E, the report category will not be changed without consultation with the MIPRB.

• Evaluation of risk to operations includes the originating organization’s risk statement. Responsible materiel management organization may close the deficiency as “Closed - Accepted Risk” subject to Resolution of Disagreements paragraph 4.9.1.

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

1.8.2.2 Operational risk contributed by deficiencies will be reviewed at acquisition executive reviews, critical design reviews, MAJCOM reviews, and/or T&E reviews.

1.8.2.3 Program Managers shall complete the DRI&R Computer Based Training (CBT) Curriculum for Program Managers and Chief Engineers as a minimum.

1.8.3 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-established 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 performing 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 recurrence, and recommends/approves closing actions.

1.8.4 Chief/Lead Engineers. Chief/Lead Engineers shall complete the DRI&R Computer Based Training (CBT) Curriculum for Program Managers and Chief Engineers as a minimum.

1-9

1.8.5 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…