HFGCS_SEP_2007.pdf

SYSTEM ENGINEERING PLAN (SEP)

547th AIRCRAFT SUSTAINMENT SQUADRON (ACSS) HIGH

FREQUENCY GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM

VERSION 1.3

07 SEPTEMBER 2007

SUBMITTED BY

~5-.s..,?1 (l?

Dat

-~ /\ 74 25's., '7 liMES FULTON, Col USAF Date ommander, 727 ACSG

Concurrence: Concurrence:

327 ASW/EN

;2b" 07Date M~ 2<r~r pAUL WAUGH, Col USAF Date Commander, 327 ASW

Concurrence:

YB~~

OC-ALC/EN

Approved by:

~ M,. ~~

LOREN M. RENO

Major General, USAF Commander

\0 0 &-0""1 Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Figures 2

1. Introduction 3

1.1. Program D.escription 3

1.2. War Plans and Operational Requirements 3

1.3. DoD Radio System 3

1.4. Program Technical Status as of Date ofthis SEP 3

1.5. Approach for SEP Updates 3

2. Systems Engineering Application to Life Cycles 4

2.1. System Capabilities, Requirements, and Design .4Considerations

2.1.1. Capabilities to be Achieved 4

2.1.2. Key Performance Parameters 4

2.1.3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 4

2.1.4. Certification Requirements 4

2.1.5. Design Considerations 4

2.2. System Engineering Organizational Integration and Technical Authority(SE). 5

2.2.1. System Engineering Roles and Responsibilities 5

2.2.2. Integration of Systems Engineering (SE) into Program IPTs 6

2.3. Systems Engineering Process 7

2.3.1. Process Selection 7

2.3.2. Areas for Improving 7

2.3.3. Process Improvement 8

2.3.4. Tools and Resources ..8

2.3.5. Approach for Trades 8

2.4. Technical Management and ControL 9

2.4.1. Technical Baseline Management and Control (Strategy and Approach) 9

2.4.2. Technical Review (Strategy and Approach) 9

2.4.3. OSS&E Baseline Management and ControL 9

2.5. Integration with Overall Program Management Control Efforts 10

2.5.1. Acquisition Strategy " 10

2.5.2. Risk Management. 10

2.5.3. Integrated Master Plan (IMP) 10

2.5.4. Quality Program .11

2.5.5. Contract Management .11

2.5.6. Metrics .12

Appendix A - Applicable References ..14 Appendix B - Acronyms .15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. 547th Aircraft Sustainment Squadron (ACSS) Organization 5

Figure 2.2. Basic Systems Engineering Process 7

Table 2.1. Summary of Contracting Activities 12

1. Introduction

1.1. Program Description. The 547 Aircraft Sustainment Squadron (ACSS), High Frequency Global Communications System (HFGCS) is a DoD joint interest high power, high frequency (HF) radio system used to support air-ground-air, point-to-point and broadcast missions allocated to the DoD. HFGCS covers the United States Air Force (USAF) elements of Mission Areas 393 (Long Haul Communications and the National Communications System), 343 (Theater Communications Systems) and 340 (Theater and Tactical Programs).

1.2. War Plans and Operational Requirements. The 547 ACSS supports war plans and operational requirements for the White House Communications Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Command Center through USSTRATCOM Emergency Action Messages, Air Expeditionary Forces through Defense Information Infrastructure HF Entry (formerly called DCS-HF entry), USTRANSCOM and MAJCOM Global Command and Control, Navy High Command and the Information and Telecommunications System of the American Air Forces.

1.3. DoD Radio System. HFGCS provides DoD a radio system capable of providing continuous, reliable, long range communications services. This radio system supports broad communications services ranging from single channel, simplex, non-secure voice, to multi-channel non-secure/secure full duplex voice and data connectivity. The system also provides email data transmission for secure and non-secure traffic.

1.4. Program Technical Status. Program Technical Status: The HFGCS is in the Operations and Sustainment phase of its life cycle. HFGCS has several mission driven modifications that are being implemented, as well as posturing for a system Technical Refresh in the FYIO timeframe. It is essential that an early and consistent application of systems engineering begin at the onset of these modifications. The HFGCS relies on each station's host units for organizational level maintenance and on contractor logistics for depot level sustainment. The 547 ACSS has a sole source contract with Rockwell Collins which includes Contractor Logistics Support and defines the sustainment tasks and activities that the contractor will perform. It is generally not the intent to incorporate the contractor's detailed processes and practices into the contract. Instead, the technical approach relies heavily on the contractor's processes and practices, and the Statement of Work (SOW) addresses the application of the processes during the design, development, test, manufacture, delivery, and sustainment, as applicable to the program. In that way the 547 ACSS leverages the contractor's domain expertise by implementing the contractor's "enterprise" technical and technical management processes. It is a contract requirement that the contractor will flow down the technical and technical management plans and processes to the subcontractors or teammates, including how they will participate in the processes.

1.5. Approach for SEP Updates. This SEP replaces the previous one, dated 6 July 2006.

This SEP was accomplished in conjunction with the 727 ACSG SEP and the DoD release ofthe Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) Preparation Guide Version 1.02 dated 10 February 2006. The SEP is a "living document." The 547 ACSS will review and update the SEP at least once a year. Additional updates to the SEP may be required to reflect any significant changes to the technical approach resulting from changes in systems engineering policy, major technical reviews, additional or significant changes to requirements, or other developments that substantially alter the technical approach to these programs.

2. Systems Engineering Application to Life Cycles

2.1. System Capabilities, Requirements, and Design Considerations

2.1.1. Capabilities to be Achieved. The primary capabilities of HFGCS are defined in the Single Acquisition Management Plan and the Operational Requirements Document (ORD). In terms ofthe modifications, customer requirements are analyzed to understand the stakeholder needs, expectations, constraints, and external interfaces.

The group's Requirements Management Process is documented in 727 ACSG Operating Instruction 63-001. This document outlines a process that will bring the users, contractors, and the Acquisition Sustainment Unit (ASU) together early in the program to fully define and understand all requirements and derived requirements, quantify these requirements to the maximum extent possible, and review them periodically.

2.1.2. Key Performance Parameters. The critical characteristics of HFGCS are defined in the ORD and characterized in the HFGCS OSS&E baseline metrics.

Current status of OSS&E Baseline Metrics is reported quarterly to the Lead MAlCOM (HQ AMC/A6NG) and to the 89CS. Any required corrective action is discussed and implemented jointly between 547 ACSS, HQ MC/A6NG, and 89CS.

The SEP requires 547 ACSS to maintain the OSS&E baseline level six certification already documented for the system. Failure to meet the threshold values of any parameter will result in review by ASU and users and corrective management action as appropriate.

2.1.3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements. The HFGCS must comply with all applicable, federal, DoD, and USAF regulations pertaining to the operation and sustainment of this weapon system. In particular, compliance with all Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and federal, state, and local environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) regulations is mandatory.

2.1.4. Certification Requirements. Certifications and Accreditation (C&A) for the HFGCS is two-fold. Security C&A is required for HFGCS since it operates and connects to the Air Force/DoD computer/IP networks. Full authority to connect!

operate requires formal C&A approval from the HFGCS Designated Approval Authority. Military Standard compliance and interoperability certification is also required for the HFGCS HF radio communications equipment. Details of required certificationsare listedin the HFGCSLevel6 - Operational,Safety,Suitabilityand Effectiveness (OSS&E) Implementation & Management Plan.

2.1.5. Design Considerations. The overarching design consideration of any modification will be to maintain or enhance current capabilities. In addition to this, designs will account for mission accomplishment, obsolescence issues, other on-going and planned modifications.

2.2. Systems Engineering Organizational Integration and Technical Authority

Figure 2.1. 547 Aircraft Sustainment Squadron (ACSS) Organization

2.2.1. Systems Engineering Roles and Responsibilities

2.2.1.1. Group Commander. As the System Program Manager (SPM), the commander is responsible for the sustainment and modification of the HFGCS.

The commander is the decision authority for all modifications, configurations, and baselines. The commander will ensure and preserve the OSS&E baseline.

The commander will ensure implementation of a disciplined systems engineering process to maintain and manage the weapon system configuration over the expected life cycle.

2.2.1.2. Chief Engineer. The chief engineer will lead the overarching effort for developing, implementing, and managing the systems engineering processes within the 727 ACSG. The chief engineer is responsible and accountable to the SPM for a disciplined engineering process to achieve and preserve OSS&E baselines. The chief engineer will ensure the SEP is reviewed at least once per year.

2.2.1.3. Engineering Flight Chief. The Engineering Flight Chief will ensure the HFGCS program follows the systems engineering policy and processes.

727 AIRCRAFTSUSTAINMENTGROUP

Col James Fulton, Commander Ms. Jerri Hulme, Deputy Director

IIPNfPN(i:DIV 'I!t-1S!:titiill:Y Mr.,.J!j!,ChietH

ENGINEERING OFFICE

Mr. Jim Miller, MGMfOPERATIONSFIt

I

Chief Engineer

Mr. Walt Weber I

544'AIReUR :54Sf;ltIReUR 546 AIReUR 541AlRCUR

SUS'f!sQ SUS'fSQ SU$1FsQ sQS'fSQ MrZl;irie .Boatright

I

ENGINEERING Program FLT Management

J'LT

Mr.Willij! Washington Dr TonY;Schones

The Engineering Flight Chief will ensure peer reviews for the technical evaluation of a modification or repair is in compliance with applicable standards and originating requirements. The modifications will be reviewed IAW 727 ACSG 01 63-1101 on Modification Management. The Engineering Flight Chief will ensure that the peer reviews are comprised of personnel who have the knowledge and expertise to effectively evaluate the modification or repair.

2.2.1.4. Program Engineer. The program engineer will implement the policy and processes for the HFGCS. They will ensure all reporting requirements up the chain of command are met. They will monitor the program to ensure that the primary contractor and any subcontractors properly apply systems engineering.

2.2.1.5. Working Group(s). Working groups will be used as required to facilitate analysis and exchange of data between the ASU, customer, and contractor.

2.2.1.6. Process Improvement Teams (PITs). As 727 ACSG reinvigorates and improves their systems engineering in accordance with DoD policy, various 727 ACSG PITs will be formed to improve various areas. For example, the 727 ACSG implemented four PITs last year to develop a requirements management process, risk management process, test management process, and phased implementation of systems engineering.

These PITs will serve as the primary means to develop and enhance the group's systems engineering function. The PITs serve to help facilitate program communication, track program risks and technical performance measures, and develop/monitor program plans and processes within the context of ensuring a sound systems engineering approach. These PITs are typically comprised of engineers from 727 ACSG, OC-ALC systems engineering functional office, stakeholders, program managers, and various contractors currently under contract.

2.2.2. Integration of Systems Engineering into Program IPTs. In order to ensure the best producible and sustainable system is implemented for each modification, an Integrated Product Team (IPT) may be used during execution of the program.

Although each modification has different requirements and thus different IPTs composition, the IPTs will involve both program participants and stakeholders. The contractor shall identify the primary participants within each IPT and the supporting participants to include the government and subcontractors. The contractor shall provide a description of the technical organization within the program IPT structure identifying roles and responsibilities, key personnel, and technical staffing requirements. This description will include a summary of the principle products of the IPT. Finally, it will also include a description of technical working groups with roles, responsibilities, and proposed participants (e.g., Interface Working Group, Test Planning Working Group, and Technology Roadmap Working Group).

2.3. Systems Engineering Process.

2.3.1. Process Selection. While there are many processes that can fall under the broad umbrella of systems engineering, 547 ACSS will initially follow two paths.

Externally, 547 ACSS will utilize the contractor's domain expertise by implementing the contractor's "enterprise" technical and technical management processes. The contractor will flow down the technical and technical management plans and processes to the subcontractors, teammates, or vendors as appropriate. In addition to using the contractor's enterprise processes, 547 ACSS will ensure the contractor employs continuous process improvement activities and that the basic systems engineering process engine, shown in Figure 1, is used throughout the program. By using the basic systems engineering process engine to solve problems both large and small, individuals and IPTs take the time to analyze the situation and verify they are doing the right things in order to arrive at solutions which meet user requirements and expectations.

Operational Requirements Technology Constraints

Cost - Schedule - Performance Contracting, Legal Program Direction

Product Baselines Performance Specifications Operating and Support Data

Hardware and Software

2.3.2. Areas for Improving. Internally, 727 ACSG selected the following areas for improvment: requirements management process, risk management process, test management process, systems engineering training, and phased implementation of systems engineering. PITs were formed for the three processes and an operating instruction was published for each. Sound functional requirements are the backbone of the technical strategy. The functional requirements, at a minimum, must be quantifiable, unambiguous, and balanced with program risk, cost, and schedule constraints. Without this the program has a high probability of incurring cost increases, suffering schedule delays, or deficient performance of the end

RequireQ1ents

A",alysis "" .i?i

Requirements Loop

Requirements DecoQ1position

Design

Verification Loop

Loop Synthesis product. The 727 ACSG will utilize 2007 to engrain and refine these three processes. Baseline systems engineering training was identified for engineers, supervisors, program managers, and equipment specialists. The training was outlined in NSPS objectives and slated to be accomplished by November 2007. New training goals will be identified before the next NSPS cycle.

2.3.3. Process Improvement. The 547 ACSS engineers will: assess the maturity and application of the contractor's processes; ensure that the technical processes are mature and stable and represent the contractor's application of corporate enterprise processes and lessons learned; verify that the approach, tasks, processes, and procedures flow down to the subcontractors, vendors, and lowest level suppliers as appropriate; confirm a trained workforce (familiar with the processes, practices, procedures, and tools) is available and in place to ensure accomplishment of the work; substantiate that program-specific plans represent a sound integrated technical approach; and validate that planning is integrated across the SOW, SEP, Integrated Master Plan/Integrated Master Schedule (IMP/IMS), and other program management plans and processes to support critical path analysis and risk management.

In addition, 727 ACSG has a number of technical review and feedback mechanisms in place to ensure the process is embedded in the day-to-day operation of727 ACSG.

Examples include: Safety Review Boards, Materiel Safety Task Group, Technical Review Boards, Technical Interchange Meetings, and Test Review Boards.

2.3.4. Tools and Resources. Systems engineering automation tools will be fully integrated into the early phases of the program, and automated tools, where effective, will be used by functional and specialty engineering organizations on the program. It is expected that the contractor or responsible test organization (RTO) will provide an overview ofthe methods, tools, and analyses needed (e.g., hardware, software, ESOH hazard analyses and risk assessments, human allocation, trade-off analyses, systems and cost effectiveness, cost benefit, and risk impact analyses). It is also expected that the contractor or RTO will describe the program's intended use of modeling and simulation (M&S) and other analysis tools to facilitate the systems engineering process throughout the system's life cycle. The contractor or RTO will describe the plan for managing the M&S activities for optimum cost-effectiveness and describe how the program will avoid duplication of efforts by reusing M&S resources where applicable. In addition, 727 ACSG uses a multifaceted technical surveillance approach to monitor the health of all the weapon systems. Examples include: Configuration Control Boards (CCBs), Program Management Reviews, OSS&E metrics, Requirements and Planning Councils, and a quarterly Weapon System Review for each aircraft type.

2.3.5. Approach for Trades. To the maximum extent feasible, trade studies should be considered as part of each new modification effort. The trade studies should account for: cost, schedule and technical performance; all prior trade studies and how they have steered the technical and programmatic changes to the program;

the criteria for decision-making and trade-off of alternative design solutions; and who is responsible for making trade-off decisions and at what level in the organization that decision maker resides.

2.4. Technical Management and Control

2.4.1. Technical Baseline Management and Control (Strategy and Approach).

Technical Baseline Management and Control (Strategy and Approach): The 547 ACSS will use existing (commercial) information systems and data formats instead ofDoD unique systems and data formats to control the configuration oftechnical data and product configurations. However, these existing systems must still satisfy the information requirements of the program and not pose compatibility issues with DoD interface standards. (Ref: DoD 5000.2-R, paragraph C.5.2.3.4.6 & AFI 63-1101, paragraph 2.3.1 and 2.3.14). The contractors will provide near real-time access to technical product data for program participants. An important element of the program's technical approach is focused on maturing the technical baseline via event-based technical reviews while managing the systematic decomposition and allocation of the requirements down the specification hierarchy. This baseline should be traceable to the system requirements baseline, which in turn is traceable to the customer and user requirements. The establishment and maintenance of the integrity of work products using configuration identification, configuration control, configuration status accounting, and configuration audits, including all tasks performed to establish and maintain contractually required work products delivered to the customer is a criticai element to program execution and system development. The CCB is the formal organized body in 727 ACSG that has approval and disapproval authority over managed weapon system configuration changes. The 547 ACSS is responsible for identifying/establishing configuration baselines and documenting, reviewing/ evaluating, and disposing of proposed changes/departures to the baseline data. The CCB process is described in 727 ACSG 01 63-1101. Each and every submittal or request for a deviation or waiver from either the contractor or the field unit will be reviewed and only approved or disapproved after a thorough analysis by 547 ACSS and in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the group's OIs.

2.4.2. Technical Review (Strategy and Approach). An important element ofthe program's technical approach is focused on maturing the technical baseline via event-based technical reviews while managing the systematic decomposition and allocation of the requirements down the specification hierarchy. These reviews may include, but are not limited to, System Functional Reviews, Systems Software Reviews, Preliminary Design Reviews, Critical Design Reviews, and CCBs. Technical reviews will be conducted in addition to regular IPT meetings even though those attending a technical review may consist of an individual IPT. Usually though, attendees at a technical review will represent a broad cross-section of IPT membership.

2.4.3. OSS&E Baseline Management and Control. The critical characteristics of HFGCS are identified in the OSS&E baseline maintained for the HFGCS. The 547 ACSS will maintain the OSS&E baseline characteristics defined in the HFGCS Level 6 - OSS&E Implementation and Management Plan. Failure to meet the threshold values of any parameter will result in review by the ASU and users and corrective management action as appropriate.

2.5. Integration with Overall Program Management Control Efforts

2.5.1. Acquisition Strategy. Systems engineering is an integral part of the acquisition strategy. One aspect to achieving a comprehensive acquisition strategy for HFGCS will be to instill systems engineering incentives within the contract by using the May 2006 release of the DoD Guide for Contracting for Systems Engineering. A second means to incorporate systems engineering into the acquisition strategy is by including systems engineering as one of the assessment criteria for each contract. Third, 547 ACSS will follow the newly authored Requirements Management Process Operating Instruction, 63-001, to help focus on establishing the clear, cost-effective system performance requirements that deliver the necessary warfighter capability. Finally, 547 ACSS will continue to write capabilities-based SOWs.

2.5.2. Risk Management. Operational Risk Management is a decision- making process to systematically evaluate possible courses of action, identify risks and benefits, and determine the best course of action for any given situation. The 727 ACSG has established 727 ACSG 01 63-003 so that risk management processes are consistently applied across its various weapon systems. The 01 documents how risk items are identified, analyzed for impacts to the program, reduced or mitigated, and tracked throughout the performance of the design, development, and sustainment efforts. The 01 also includes how to report the risks, when and where they will be reported and even includes metrics for tracking. Risk management for the system as a whole is conducted with 547 ACSS during monthly internal program reviews. Risk management at the group level is primarily through quarterly Weapon System Reviews. Weekly telecons/ VTCs with the Lead MAlCOM and prime contractor allow for quicker identification of risks and opportunities to mitigate their impact on cost, schedule, or performance. The primecontractorfollowstheirownISO9000standardsandriskmanagementprocesses and is required to manage their subcontractors, teammates and vendors. Risk management occurs continuously and iteratively throughout the program life cycle.

2.5.3. Integrated Master Plan (IMP). The IMP includes explanations of the major technical and systems engineering tasks and review milestones. Updates to the IMP will be provided through IPTs. IPT meeting minutes will provide the supporting documentation for approved changes. The IMP should clearly demonstrate that the program is executable within schedule, cost constraints, and acceptable risk. The IMP should provide a direct correlation between the event-driven activities in the IMP and the planned technical approach documented in the SEP. The systems engineering schedule for developing requirements, performing the allocation, developing architectures (design synthesis), system level testing, verification and validation, and event-based technical reviews are some of the key systems engineering activities which will be reflected in the program IMP.

2.5.4. Quality Program. The 727 ACSG uses several different avenues to verify and ensure quality. First, the 547 ACSS quality program directs contractors to provide quality products and service in accordance with best commercial practices. Second, the quality program employs contract administration oversight, annual performance assessments, and annual management reviews with the customer to monitor and control all activities that impact quality and ensure quality requirements.are met. All 547 ACSS contracts contain provisions for quality assessment. FAR 42.302 requires a quality assurance representative (QAR). The 547 ACSS authored a Memorandum of Agreement with DCMA to get their assistance in meeting the contractor administration functions such as QAR duties. Finally, the 547 ACSS quality program will rely heavily on the contractor's internal quality program processes and practices. In this way 547 ACSS can leverage the contractor's domain expertise by implementing the contractor's "enterprise" quality program and quality program management. It is expected also that the contractor will flow down this quality program and processes to the subcontractors, teammates, and vendors. The 547 ACSS verifies Quality Assurance of equipment delivered to the field and any modifications of the HFGCS through extensive Type II and Type III Installation and Acceptance Testing. All ofthese tests are witnessed by the ASU and/or the RTO.

2.5.5. Contract Management. Contract management focuses on the business and technical management approaches designed to achieve the customer's objectives within specified resource constraints. This includes developing the procurement and contracting strategies necessary for implementation. The 547 ACSS will include systems engineering as one of the assessment criteria for each contract where appropriate. In addition, 547 ACSS continues to work to incorporate systems engineering incentives into future contracts. Policy Memo 03A-005, 9 April 2003, entitled, "Incentivizing Contractors for Better Systems Engineering" directs units to assess ability to incentivize contractors to perform robust systems engineering. In an effort to comply with this policy, 547 ACSS will use the DoD Guide for Contracting for Systems Engineering, released in May 2006 as the primary tool to assist in developing the necessary contractual language. As always, 727 ACSG must weigh the likely benefits of the incentives against the administrative burdens of implementing them. In 2006, mandatory systems engineering metrics were included in one of the group's key contracts for the first time. As this format proves viable and beneficial, more contracts will include this metric. Furthermore, the contracting officer will be involved in the planning process as early as possible. Finally, the program manager, systems engineer, and contracting officer work together to transition the acquisition strategy, technical approach, and acquisition planning into a cohesive, executable contract. The basic items to consider are shown in Table 2.1., next page.

Table 2.1. Summary of Contracting Activities

Identify technical actions required to successfully complete technical and procurement milestones.

Identify the overall procurement requirements and associated budget. Describe the government's needs and any constraints placed on the procurement.

Describe market research results, including previous procurements, related requirements, and historical problems as they affect technical issues.

Wark to identify sources, budgeting and funding, product descriptions, priorities, allocations, allotments, contractor vs. government performance, management information requirements, government-furnished property, government-furnished information, environmental considerations, security considerations, and milestones.

Identify deliverable quantities, including options and foreign military sales; prepare the contract line item structure and data requirements with the assigned contracting office.

Plan the requirements for the contract statement of objectives SOW specification, project technical reviews, acceptance requirements, and schedule.

Identify acquisition streamlining approach and requirements.

Establish warranty requirements.

Implement requirements for contract administration office MOA and/or letter of delegation.

Prepare a purchase request or Request for Proposal to include requirements for Sections Land M of the solicitation (proposed format instructions and evaluation criteria).

Establish contract cost, schedule, and performance reporting requirements.

Implement a source selection strategy and prepare a Source Selection Plan.

Conduct the source selection and negotiate a contract with the winner.

2.5.6. Metrics. Metrics will be used to track progress and status on systems engineering within the various weapon systems. The chief engineer has designed metrics to depict systems engineering status for a program by measuring five areas.

These five areas are requirements, incentivizing contracts, risk, life cycle cost/ robustness, and processes. These metrics can be rolled up to the squadron and,then group level. The metrics will be briefed at the Weapon System Review held within the group every quarter to the SPM. The chief engineer has outlined a comprehensive and exhaustive template ofmetrics to be used at the Weapon System Review. The metrics will be used to evaluate the success of the systems engineering process in the weapon system.

Appendix A. Applicable References

T.O. 00-35D-54, USAF Deficiency Reporting and Investigation System

TINKER MANUAL 90-107, OC-ALC Quality Manual

AFMCI 63-510, Deficiency Reporting (DR) and Investigation Program

AFMCP AM 63-104, IWSM Configuration Management Implementation Guide

AFI 63-1101, Modification Management

AFPD 63-12, Assurance of Operational Safety, Suitability & Effectiveness

AFMAN 63-119, Certification of System Readinessfor Dedicated Operational Test and Evaluation

AFI 91-202 AFMCSUP1, The USAir Force Mishap Prevention Program, AFMC Supplement 1

MIL-HDBK-61A, Configuration Management Guidance

D~D Guide for Contractingfor Systems Engineering

MIL-STD-882D, Standard Practicefor System Safety

AFI 63-501, Air Force Acquisition Quality Program

AFMCI 63-501, AFMC Quality Assurance

TI 90-113, Quality System Management Review Policy and Procedure

AFPD 90-9, Operational Risk Management

SOW-OI-0CALC-LIX-001, Statement of Workfor the Scope Command High Frequency Radio Modernization

727 ACSG 01 63-001, Requirements Management Process

727 ACSG 01 63-003, Risk Management Process

727 ACSG 01 99-001, Test and Evaluation

Appendix B. Acronyms

ACC Air Combat Command

ACTD Advanced Concept Technical Demonstration

ACU Acquisition Sustainment Unit ACSG Aircraft Sustainment Group

AETC Air Education and Training Command AF Air Force

AFI Air Force Instruction

AFMAN Air Force Manual AFMC Air Force Materiel Command

AFPD Air Force Policy Directive AFRC Air Force Reserve Command

AMARC Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center

AMC Air Mobility Command ANG Air National Guard

ASIP Aircraft Structural Integrity Program ASU Aircraft sustainment Unit

ATD Advanced Technology Demonstration CCB Configuration Control Board

CDD Capabilities Development Document

CE Chief Engineer CINC Commander in Chief

CM Configuration Management

CMP Comprehensive Management Plan COTS Commercial Off the Shelf

CPAB Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board CSAF Chief of Staff Air Force

CTA Center Technical Authority DoD Department of Defense

DR Deficiency Report DT&E Development Test and Evaluation

EMSEC Emissions Security

ESH Environmental Safety and Health

ESO H Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FMS Foreign Military Sales

FSIP Functional Systems Integrity Program FY FiscalYear

GATM Global Air Traffic Management

GPS Global Positioning System

HSI Human System Interface lAW In Accordance With

ICD Interface Control Document

ICWG Interface Control Working Group IFF Identification Friend or Foe

IMP Integrated Master Plan

IMS Integrated Master Schedule

IPPD Integrated Product and Process Development IPT Integrated Product Team

JEDMICS Joint Engineering Data Management Information and Control System KPP Key Performance Parameters

LCC Life Cycle Costs

M&S Modeling and Simulation MACC Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria

MAJCOM Major Command

MCEB Military Communication Electronics Board

MDA Milestone Decision Authority MDS Mission Design Series

M0 A Memorandum Of Agreement

MOSA Modular Open Systems Approach

MRRB Maintenance Requirements Review Board

MSTG Materiel Safety Task Group

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act O&S Operations and Sustainment

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 0 I Operating Instruction

OPR Office of Primary Responsibility

OSS&E Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness OT&E Operational Test and Evaluation PACAF Pacific Air Forces

Pacer CRAG Pacer Compass, Radar, and Global Positioning System PDM Programmed Depot Maintenance

PESHE Programmatic Environmental, Safety, and Health Evaluation PIT Process Improvement Team

PIW G Product Improvement Working Group

PMD Program Management Directive PSWG PDM Standardization Working Group QAR Quality Assurance Representative

Rand PC Requirements and Planning Council

RMP Risk Management Plan R-TOC Reduction Total Ownership

RVSM Reduced Vertical Separation Minima

SEP Systems Engineering Plan

SFR System Functional Review

SME Subject Matter Experts

SRB Safety Review Board

SSG System Safety Group

SSWG Supply Support Working Group SWG Structures Working Group T&E Test and Evaluation

TACC Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria

TCTO Time Compliant Technical Order

TDS Technology Development Strategy TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan

TIM Technical Interchange Meeting TO Technical Order

TOC Total Ownership Costs

TRA Technology Readiness Assessment TRB Technical Review Board

UDLM Un-programmed Depot Level Maintenance USAF United States Air Force

USAFE United States Air Forces Europe

USD Under Secretary of Defense