CSMUIMPUJpdate29Nov18.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

B-2 Program FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 1 of 18

Integrated Master Plan (IMP)

For

B-2 Flight Data Recorder (FDR)/Crash Survivable Memory Unit (CSMU)

Modernization

29 Nov 18

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EVENTS, SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ACCOMPLISHMENT CRITERIA

AND EXIT CRITERIA

2.1 Major Contract Events (MCE)

2.2 Significant Accomplishments (SA)

2.3 Accomplishment Criteria (AC)

2.4 Exit Criteria (EC)

3.0 INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE (IMS)

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES

5.0 DEFINITIONS

5.1 Definitions of Maturity Descriptors:

5.2 Major Contract Event (MCE) Definitions:

5.3 Other Definitions:

6.0 INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN LISTING

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 2 of 18

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The B-2 CSMU Program IMP is a top-level, event-sequenced plan which organizes program work by identifying significant accomplishments and criteria required to close major contract events. The IMP is a key measurement tool of the contractor’s management control process and is the planning roadmap for successful execution of the contract.

The IMP is supported by, and directly related to, the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), which time phases program tasks that must be completed as a condition of satisfying all of the requirements of the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), and Contract Statement of Work (CSOW). The IMP is a top-level planning tool used in concert with the IMS in managing the program.

2.0 EVENTS, SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ACCOMPLISHMENT CRITERIA

AND EXIT CRITERIA

2.1 MAJOR CONTRACT EVENTS (MCE)

The IMP events identify the major contract objectives. These events are structured to chart the completeness of the effort. They represent essential decision points to accurately measure the success of the preceding phase of work or an entry point for control of a subsequent work phase.

In addition to MCEs, customer and contractor coordination will be supported through the use of Program Management Reviews (PMR)/technical interchange meetings, which provide opportunities for collaboration during execution.

2.2 SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS (SA)

Significant Accomplishments support an MCE. SAs are work products that characterize contract effort. SAs must be complete or have closure plans in place transferring non-critical path work to subsequent events before the associated MCE can be considered for closure.

2.3 ACCOMPLISHMENT CRITERIA (AC)

Accomplishment Criteria describe definitive measures or indicators of the required maturity or progress to complete an SA. They describe the tasks required to complete each SA. ACs must be complete or have jointly agreed-to closure plans in place transferring non-critical path work to subsequent criteria under another accomplishment.

2.4 EXIT CRITERIA (EC)

Certain events and accomplishments lend themselves to the use of “exit” and “entrance” criteria. Where performance requirements are used as criteria, the criteria should only make reference to the applicable specification, technical requirements document, or the system specification and not quote the specific

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 3 of 18 performance requirements. This is to avoid redundancy with the specifications and avoid potential contractual disconnects.

3.0 INTEGRATED MASTER SCHEDULE (IMS)

The IMS is an integrated, networked schedule containing all the detailed tasks necessary to support IMP events, accomplishments, and criteria. IMP events, accomplishments, and criteria are also shown in the IMS. The criteria are expanded into the detailed tasks necessary to complete the criteria. As a result, the IMS is directly traceable to the IMP. Durations are entered for each task, along with predecessor/successor relationships, and any constraints that control the start or finish of each task. The result is a fully networked schedule, including a critical path. The IMS becomes the source that depicts the planned/actual dates when each event is expected to occur, as well as all the expected dates for all necessary work to be done to complete the event. For the CSMU program, each contractor will develop an IMS for their specific contract work and provide it to the government as a deliverable (DI- MGMT-81861 Format 6).The government will integrate the contractor schedules to form a single program schedule.

4.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND GUIDELINES

The events defined in the IMP will be conducted and accomplished as scheduled within the IMS and will reflect the progressive maturity throughout the program. The IMP and IMS will be used in concert to:

Manage program events

Measure and assess program performance compared to plan, and

Identify and resolve program issues.

Daily and weekly management reviews and meetings, coupled with an aggressive risk management program, will be used by the government and each contractor to achieve technical, cost, schedule, and quality performance. Review of upcoming events, along with their associated accomplishments, will be an integral part of all management reviews, both internal and external. The CSMU Integrated Product Team (IPT) leader (Program Manager) will report accomplishments at those reviews, including any issues that may impact successful completion.

The following process describes how the IMP will be used to close out events and accomplishments:

The government and each CSMU contractor will identify individual focal points for each Major Contract Event (MCE) for which they are designated Lead.

Each CSMU contractor will provide evidence of event closure/completion for those MCE and Event Accomplishment Criteria (EAC) for which they are designated Lead.

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 4 of 18

Accomplishments shall be closed when there is mutual agreement between focal points

The government will acknowledge event completion when all accomplishments are closed (i.e., an event is the sum of its individual accomplishments)

Disagreements will be handled by the focal points or at higher levels of the B-2 CSMU IPT structure or, as a last resort, through contractual channels

The IMP Section 5.2 and Section 6.0 identify “Lead” and “Support” responsibilities for each contractor. The specific duties for each role are as follows:

Lead:

o Assume overall responsibility for planning and executing MCE and completing EAC actions. The Lead contractor shall ensure there is continuity in their company leadership positions and participants at meetings.

o Make facility arrangements o Draft a proposed agenda for government approval o Obtain Support contractor input for agendas o Develop presentation materials o Obtain Support contractor input to presentation materials o Conduct briefings o Coordinate with Support contractor for briefers (if required) o Document MCE results (minutes) and obtaining government approval o Obtain Support contractor input to meeting minutes

Support:

o Provide appropriate leadership and SME participation at MCE and assist in completing EAC actions. The Support contractor shall ensure there is continuity in their company participants at meetings.

o Provide the Lead contractor information for visit requests, if required.

o Provide agenda inputs, as requested o Provide presentation materials, as requested o Provide briefers, as requested o Provide inputs to meeting minutes, as requested

5.0 DEFINITIONS

5.1 DEFINITIONS OF MATURITY DESCRIPTORS:

Descriptor Definition

Acquired Procured and/or fabricated and available.

Analysis/ Analyzed

The subject parameter(s) has been technically evaluated through equations, charts, simulations, prototype testing, reduced data, etc.

Approved The subject item, data, or document has been submitted to the government and the government has notified the contractor that it is acceptable.

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 5 of 18

Available The subject item is in place/The subject process is operational/The subject data or document has been added to the Data Accession List/The subject item is ready for test.

Awarded Contractor/Subcontractor is authorized to begin.

Baselined Provides a product consistent with the technical maturity defined by the contractor’s Systems Engineering Management Plan and under configuration control.

Complete(d) The item or action has been prepared or accomplished, IAW directions, applicable standards, guidelines, and negotiated and documented customer expectations and is available for use and/or review.

Concurrence The government has expressed its agreement with the contractors proposed design, approach, or plan as documented in either formal correspondence or meeting minutes, presentations, etc.

Conducted Review or meeting held physically and minutes and action plans generated/Test or demonstration performed.

Deficiencies Corrected

New designs and/or procedures to correct documented deficiencies have been identified and incorporated into the baseline documentation.

Defined Identified, analyzed, and documented.

Delivered Distributed or transferred to the government (by DD 250, if applicable).

Demonstrated Shown to be acceptable by test and/or production/field application.

Developed Created through analysis and documented.

Dispositioned Action items, test results, watch items, or reports, are dispositioned when focal points have agreed that the action item(s), test results, watch items, or reports are current, accurate, complete, and/or closed.

Documented Placed in a verifiable form (written/recorded/electronically captured).

Drafted An initial version (usually of a document) has been created which will require updating to finalize.

Ended Complete; over.

Established The subject item has been set and documented.

Finalized Last set of planned revisions has been made or final approval has been obtained.

Generated Required information has been placed into written form.

Identified Made known and documented.

Implemented Put in place and/or begun.

Initiated Begun.

In-Place At the physical location needed, ready to use or to perform.

Obtained Received and documented.

Ordered Purchase orders completed.

Met Agreement reached that requirements have been satisfied.

Prepared Information placed into written form.

Provided Given to in some traceable form (paper, briefing, electronically, etc.).

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 6 of 18

Published Distributed to team members, either formally (by CDRL), or placement on Data Accession List.

Received Shipped or delivered item is physically in possession of intended receiver.

Refined Next level of detail has been added or updates made.

Released Signed off cover page, submitted to and accepted by configuration management, archived, and distribution completed as required.

Reviewed Provided to the government for examination to determine status and acceptability.

Submitted Formally submitted to the government.

Traceable Logical flow and tracking of information from a top level source document to all lower level documents, data bases, and data items as applicable.

Trained Type I training course completed.

Updated Revisions made to documents, metrics, and cost estimates to incorporate contractor and/or government changes.

Validated Subject item, data, or document has been tested for accuracy by the contractor.

Verified Substantiated by analysis and/or test performed independently of builder/preparer.

Written Created but not yet published or submitted.

5.2 MAJOR CONTRACT EVENT (MCE) DEFINITIONS:

The major milestone events that apply to this contract are defined below.

Major Contract Event Major Contract Event Definition

Event A-Integrated Baseline Review (IBR)

Lead: L3 Support: NG

The purpose of an IBR is to ensure the team has a common and thorough understanding of the project plan, reflecting the entire scope of work documented at the appropriate level, and to lay a solid foundation for mutual understanding of project risks.

Content includes: technical progress reviewed, program risks identified and database populated, earned value methods reviewed, work packages in place, IMS reviewed, and IBR conducted.

To be conducted NLT 4 months after Authority To Proceed

(ATP).

Event B-Combined System Requirements

The SRR/SFR is a technical review accomplished in accordance with Section 6.0, Event A, of this document.

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 7 of 18

Review (SRR) /System Functional Review (SFR)/Preliminary Design Review (PDR)

Lead: L3 Support: NG

The purpose of the SRR is to baseline the top level requirements for the B-2 CSMU Modernization program.

The purpose of the SFR is to ensure that the system’s functional baseline is established and can satisfy the system requirements.

To be conducted NLT 9 months after ATP.

The combined SRR/SFR is intended to provide the following:

1. An approved system performance specification with sufficiently conservative requirements to provide for design trade space

2. A preliminary allocation of system requirements to human and software subsystems

3. A preliminary identification of all software components (tactical, support, deliverable, non-deliverable, etc.)

4. A comprehensive risk assessment

5. A draft schedule that addresses cost and critical path drivers SRR/SFR success criteria include affirmative answers to the following exit questions:

1. Is there an approved system performance specification?

2. Are all necessary system requirements derived from all appropriate source documents?

3. Can the system functional requirements, as disclosed, provide the required operational capability?

4. Are the system functional requirements sufficiently detailed and understood to enable system design to proceed?

5. Is there an established system functional baseline with traceability to lower level performance requirements supporting:

a. System functional definition

b. Functional decomposition

c. Test and evaluation planning

6. Have Human Systems Integration requirements been reviewed and included in the overall system design?

7. Are adequate processes and metrics in place for the program to succeed?

8. Are the risks known and manageable for development/updated?

9. Is the program schedule executable (technical/cost risks)?

10. Is the program properly staffed?

11. Is the program with the approved functional baseline executable within the existing budget?

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 8 of 18

12. Has the system functional baseline been established to enable preliminary design to proceed with proper configuration management?

13. Has a draft preliminary software requirements specification been defined, with complete verification requirements?

14. Has an initial software architecture design been defined?

15. Have system threads been identified and modeled?

16. Have the system-level hazards been reviewed and mitigating courses of action been identified?

17. Have software assurance requirements been captured in the approved system performance specification and traced to the baseline security controls required for JSIG Risk Management Framework (RMF) authorization?

18. Have relevant Critical Program Information (CPI) and any protection requirements been identified in the allocated baseline?

The PDR will assess the maturity of the CSMU Modernization preliminary design against system requirements. The PDR will establish the allocated baseline and confirm that the system under review is ready to proceed into detailed design.

The PDR is intended to provide the following:

1. An established system allocated baseline

2. An updated risk assessment

3. An updated program development schedule including test and evaluation, software coding, and critical path drivers

PDR success criteria include affirmative answers to the following exit questions:

1. Is the allocated baseline established and placed under configuration control?

2. Is technical data for the preliminary design complete?

Does it satisfy the system performance specification and provide a sufficient foundation for detailed design to proceed?

3. Have risks been assessed and accepted by leadership, with any risk mitigation plans approved and documented in the IMS?

4. Are feasibility, cost, and schedule within acceptable risk margins?

5. Is the IMS updated (including systems and software critical path drivers), to include all activities required to complete Critical Design Review (CDR)?

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 9 of 18

6. Have corrective action plans for issues identified in the PDR been completed?

7. Is the Life-Cycle Sustainment Plan (as required) updated to reflect development efforts and schedules?

8. Were System Security Engineering (SSE) concerns considered when establishing the allocated baseline?

9. Is the preliminary system design, including security, ready to proceed into detailed design; and can stated security performance requirements be met within cost, schedule, risk, and other system constraints?

10. Have security requirements been flowed down to lower tier specifications? Have security requirements been tagged with meta-data and are they bi-directionally traceable to higher tier specifications and verifiable?

To be conducted NLT 9 months after ATP

Event C-Critical Design Review (CDR)

Lead: L3 Support: NG

The purpose of the CDR is to ensure that the system under review has a reasonable expectation of satisfying the requirements of the System Requirements Document (SRD) within the currently allocated budget and schedule. This review assesses the final design as captured in product specifications for each Configuration Item in the system and ensures that each product specification has been captured in detailed design documentation. Product specifications for software enable coding of the Computer Software Configuration Item.

The CDR provides the total system view to include software design. The CDR is conducted to ensure that detail design solutions, as reflected in the configuration identification documentation, satisfy performance requirements established in the item specifications.

The CDR is intended to provide the following:

1. An established system product baseline

2. An updated risk assessment

3. An updated program development schedule including test and evaluation, software coding, and critical path drivers

CDR success criteria include affirmative answers to the following exit questions:

1. Are the PDR actions closed?

2. Does the detailed design including interface descriptions satisfy the SRD?

3. Does the status of the technical effort and design indicate operational test and evaluation success (operationally effective and suitable)?

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 10 of 18

4. Has the system product baseline been established and documented to enable software coding to proceed with proper configuration management?

5. Has the detailed design satisfied sustainment and Human System Integration/Interface requirements?

6. Are adequate processes/metrics in place for the program to succeed?

7. Are the risks known and manageable for testing in support of developmental and operational evaluation objectives?

8. Is the program schedule executable (technical/cost risks)?

9. Is the program properly staffed?

10. Are all Critical Safety Items and Critical Application Items identified?

11. Is the software functionality in the approved product baseline consistent with the updated software metrics and schedule?

12. Have key product characteristics having the most impact on system performance, cost, or safety been identified?

13. Are the Environmental Safety and Occupational Health (ESOH) residual risks known and manageable?

14. Are System Security Engineering (SSE) requirements and designs reflected in the system product baseline and traced to baseline security controls required for RMF authorization?

15. Are the SSE-specified requirements satisfied by the design architecture and approach?

To be conducted NLT 12 months after ATP.

Event D-Test Readiness Review (TRR)

Lead: NG Support: L3

The purpose of the TRR is to ensure that the subsystem or system under review is ready to proceed into Integrated Functional Capability (IFC) certification formal test. The TRR assesses test objectives, test methods and procedures, scope of tests, and safety and confirms that required test resources have been properly identified and coordinated to support planned tests. The TRR verifies the traceability of planned tests to program requirements and user needs. The TRR determines the completeness of test procedures and their compliance with test plans and descriptions. The TRR assesses the system under review for development maturity, cost/schedule effectiveness, and risk to determine readiness to proceed to formal testing.

Completion of the TRR success criteria should include the following:

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 11 of 18

1. Completed and approved test plans for the system under test

2. Completed identification and coordination of required test resources

3. The judgment that previous component, subsystem, and system test results form a satisfactory basis for proceeding into planned tests

4. Identified risk level acceptable to the program leadership The TRR success should include affirmative answers to the following exit questions:

1. Does the planned test verify a requirement that is directly traceable back to a system specification or other program requirement?

2. Is the configuration of the system under test sufficiently mature, defined, and representative to accomplish planned test objectives and or support defined program objectives?

3. Have all planned preliminary, informal, functional, unit level, subsystem, system, and qualification tests been conducted, and are the results satisfactory?

4. Is the planned test properly resourced (people, test article or articles, facilities, data systems, support equipment, logistics, etc.)?

5. Are the risks associated with the tests identified and being mitigated?

6. Are the hazards and ESOH risks associated with the specific testing identified and being mitigated?

7. Is there a fallback plan should a technical issue or potential showstopper arise during testing?

To be conducted NLT 20 months after ATP.

Event E-Flight Readiness Review

(FRR)

Lead: NG Support: L3

The FRR is a multi-disciplined product and process assessment to ensure that the system under review can proceed into flight test with airworthiness standards met, objectives clearly stated, flight test data requirements clearly identified, and an acceptable risk management plan defined and approved. This review also ensures that proper coordination has occurred between engineering and flight test and that all applicable disciplines understand and concur with the scope of effort that has been identified and how this effort will be executed to derive the data necessary to satisfy airworthiness and test and evaluation requirements. As such, this review shall include appropriate level of detail for each configuration to be evaluated within the flight test effort.

The purpose of the FRR is to assess the readiness to initiate

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 12 of 18 and conduct flight tests or flight operations. Typically, FRR approval requires the aviation system to be under configuration management, a flight clearance issued by the technical authority, the flight test plan(s) approved, and discrepancy tracking and risk assessment processes in place.

The FRR is intended to provide the following:

1. Completed test plans for the system under test

2. Completed identification and coordination of required test resources

3. The previous component, subsystem, and system test results form a satisfactory basis for proceeding into planned tests

4. Identified risk level acceptable to the Test Wing The FRR success should include affirmative answers to the following exit questions:

1. Has an acceptable Airworthiness Determination been reached?

2. Are the test plans, procedures, and schedule adequate to verify the SRD requirements?

3. Are flight test assets (air vehicles, spares, air vehicle test instrumentation, ground support equipment, etc.)

adequate to conduct testing against planned schedules?

4. Are risk mitigation, deficiency resolution, and contingency plans including sensitivity analysis (or similar process to reflect historically representative flight test efficiency experience) developed and coordinated?

5. Have ground support facilities, labs, and human resources been determined adequate to handle test progression requirements/test problem resolution?

To be conducted NLT 24 months after ATP.

Event F-System Verification Review (SVR)/Functional Configuration Audit

(FCA)

Lead: L3 Support: NG

The SVR validates that all verification activity has been satisfactorily completed and the system design has achieved the performance and functional characteristics specified in the SRD and test plans. The SVR shall comply with the tailored CSMU Modernization System Engineering Master Plan (SEMP) Annex.

The Software FCA ensures all specified requirements have been satisfied and is conducted against the Computer Software Configuration Item. The Software Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) is a part of this combined event after all software corrective actions are implemented.

To be conducted NLT 15 months after ATP.

Event G-Production Readiness Review

The PRR determines whether the system design is ready for production and if adequate production planning has been

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 13 of 18

(PRR)/ Physical Configuration Audit

(PCA

Lead: L3 Support: NG accomplished. PRR should provide evidence that the system can be produced with acceptable risk and no breaches in cost, schedule or performance thresholds.

The PCA is an examination of the "as-built" configuration of the system or a configuration item, against its technical documentation, to establish or verify its product baseline.

The objective of the PCA is to resolve any discrepancies between the production-representative item that has successfully passed Operational Test and the associated documentation currently under configuration control. A successful PCA provides evidence that the product design is stable, the capability meets end-user needs and production risks are acceptably low. At the conclusion of the PCA, the final product baseline is established and all subsequent changes are processed by formal engineering change action.

The PCA confirms:

1. Testing deficiencies have been resolved and appropriate changes implemented; changes to the product baseline have been incorporated into current design documentation

2. Production-related activities (e.g. tooling, acceptance/inspection equipment, instructions, and make-buy decisions) are focused on a validated and accurate design

3. System elements that were affected/redesigned after completion of the FCA also meet contract requirements

4. Hardware and software configuration items are accurately represented by their product baseline information

5. Manufacturing processes, quality control system, measurement and test equipment, and training are adequately planned, tracked, and controlled

To be conducted NLT 18 months after ATP.

5.3 OTHER DEFINITIONS:

None

6.0 INTEGRATED MASTER PLAN LISTING

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 14 of 18

IMP

Code

Event Accomplishment Criteria Entrance

– ENT

Exit – EX

~Month s

After

DO

Award

Lead

Event A – Integrated Baseline Review

A01 – IBR Prerequisites

A0101 – Program Risks Documented ENT L3

A0102 – IMS updated and available ENT L3

A0103 – Pre-IBR review conducted ENT L3

A02 – IBR Event

A0201– IBR conducted EX L3

A0202 – IBR minutes approved and action items closed EX L3

A0203 – Critical IBR action items closed EX L3

Event B – System Requirements Review/System Functional Review/Preliminary Design Review

B01 – SRR/SFR Prerequisites

B0101 – System Specification reviewed ENT L3

B02 – Project Plans

B0201 – System Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) Annex initiated and reviewed

ENT

L3

B0202 – Integrated Test Plan (ITP) draft initiated and reviewed ENT L3

B0203 – Requirement Verification Plans (RVP) initiated and reviewed

ENT L3

B0204 – Software Requirements Specification (SRS) and Interface Control Documents (ICD) initiated and reviewed

ENT L3

B0205 – System Requirements Document (SRD) and Interface Control Documents (ICD) initiated and reviewed

ENT L3

B0206 – The risk database, including mitigation plans, is available ENT L3

B0207 – The Modified Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) inputs have been drafted and are available for review

ENT

L3

B0208 – Presentation of a preferred system concept is available ENT L3

B0209 – Staffing plan reviewed ENT L3

B0210 – Configuration Management Plan reviewed ENT L3

B03 – SRR/SFR Event

B0301 – SRR/SFR conducted and all planned program tasks associated with this review have successfully been closed

EX L3

B0302 – System Performance Specification approved EX L3

B0303 – Functional baseline approved EX L3

B0304 – SRR/SFR minutes approved EX L3

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 15 of 18

B0305 – SRR/SFR critical action items closed EX L3

B0306 – SRR/SFR remaining action items dispositioned EX L3

B0307 – Combined Review Closure Concurrence EX L3

B04 – PDR Prerequisites

B0401 – Software Process for Software Requirements and Software design reviewed

ENT L3

B0402 – Current Working Build reviewed ENT L3

B0403 – Interface descriptions defined ENT L3

B0404 – Integrated Block/Build OFP Release Process defined ENT L3

B0405 – Software Verification Requirements defined ENT L3

B0406 – Software Design Descriptions reviewed ENT L3

B0407 – Software Interface Requirements defined ENT L3

B0408 – Allocated baseline artifacts consisting of Software Design Documents are released

ENT

L3

B0409 – SEMP Annex is available ENT L3

B0410 – Technical Performance Measures (TPM) reviewed ENT L3

B0411 – Software Development Plan available ENT L3

B0412 – SRS and ICDs available ENT L3

B0413 – The MACC inputs have been updated and are available for review

ENT

L3

B0414 – Current Product Support Element Tiers available ENT L3

B0415 – IFC Plan reviewed ENT L3

B0416 – Software Test Plan defined ENT L3

B05 – PDR Event

B0501 – SFR/SRR action items closed EX L3

B0502 – PDR conducted and all planned program tasks associated with this review have successfully been closed

EX

L3

B0503 – Allocated baseline approved EX L3

B0504 – PDR minutes approved EX L3

B0505 – PDR critical action items closed EX L3

B0506 – PDR remaining action items dispositioned EX L3

Event C – Critical Design Review

C01 – CDR Prerequisites

C0101 – Refined IFC Plan ENT L3

C0102 – Refined Current Working Build ENT L3

C0103 – Interface Descriptions Finalized ENT L3

C0104 – PDR action items closed and/or approved closure plan in place

ENT

L3

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 16 of 18

C0105 – Preferred system concept updated and provided to the government

ENT

L3

C0106 – SRD updated and provided to the government ENT L3

C0107 – Software detailed requirements completed and provided to the government

ENT

L3

C0108 – TPMs reviewed ENT L3

C0109 – Updated risk assessment and risk disposition ENT L3

C0110 – Draft software requirement functionality list to calculate delivered content

ENT

L3

C0111 – IMP updated, if necessary ENT L3

C0112 – Updated risk assessment and risk disposition ENT L3

C0113 – SEMP annex updated and provided to the government ENT L3

C0114 – ITP and RVPs completed and delivered to the government ENT L3

C0115 – Updated product baseline and Procurement Specification provided to the government

ENT L3

C02 – Integrated Test Planning Completed

C0201 – Integrated test resources finalized ENT L3

C0202 – System test plans reviewed ENT L3

C0203 – Integration and test facilities requirements finalized ENT L3

C0204 – Initial software testing descriptions reviewed ENT L3

C03 CDR Event

C0301 – Government concurrence on updated product baseline EX L3

C0302 – Software requirement functionality list established for delivered content

EX

L3

C0303 – CDR conducted EX L3

C0304 – CDR minutes approved and action items closed/dispositioned

EX L3

C0305 – Critical action items closed EX L3

Event D – Test Readiness Review

D01 – Software Prerequisites Complete

D0101 – Software Requirements Specifications updated/completed ENT NG

D0102 – Software detailed requirements updated ENT NG

D0103 – Lab Detailed Test Requirements Complete ENT

NG

D02 – Hardware Prerequisites Complete

D0201 – Lab modifications complete ENT NG

D03 – Test Planning Complete

D0301 – Updated risk assessment/system software trouble reports defined and dispositioned

ENT NG

D0302 – System-level test procedures complete ENT NG

D0303 – Lab integration and test plan complete ENT NG

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 17 of 18

D0304 – Certified technical order change package ENT NG

D04 – TRR Conducted

D0401 – Conduct TRR EX

D0402 – Government concurrence that all components are sufficiently mature to begin system-level testing

EX

NG

D0403 – TRR minutes approved EX NG

D0404 – Critical TRR action items closed EX NG

E0405 – Remaining TRR action items dispositioned EX NG

Event E – Flight Readiness Review

E01 – Software Prerequisites Complete

E0101 – IFC (PD6.X) Certification complete and available ENT NG

E0102 – Airworthiness Certification Complete (government deliverable) /No Impact Determination

E0103 – Ground test conducted for all safety of flight items and test results dispositioned

E0104 – Technical data (per the contract Technical Manual Contract Requirement) and difference briefings available

E0105 – Program risks updated ENT

E0106 – Interim Authority to Test (IATT) approved and available (government deliverable)

ENT NG

E02 – Operational Training Received

E0201 – Type I Crew Training received ENT NG

E0202 – Type I Maintenance Training received ENT NG

E0203 – Draft Flight Manual update available ENT NG

E0204 – Familiarization activities complete ENT NG

E03 – Test Planning Complete

E0301 – Test resources defined and in place ENT NG

E0302 – Manuals/Technical Documentation completed ENT NG

E0303 – Test Assets Conformity verified ENT NG

E0304 – Flight Test Plan complete ENT NG

E0305 – Test Procedures complete ENT NG

E0306 – Certifications/Endorsements/Waivers/Authorizations received

ENT

NG

E0307 – Detailed Test Requirements (DTR) complete ENT NG

E04 – FRR Conducted

E0401 – FRR conducted EX NG

E0402 – FRR minutes approved EX NG

E0403 – Critical FRR action items closed EX NG

E0404 – Remaining FRR action items dispositioned EX NG

E0405 – FRR closure concurrence EX NG

FDR/CSMU Modernization Page 18 of 18

E0406 – Flight clearance approved EX NG

Event F – System Verification Review/Functional Configuration Audit

F01 – SVR/FCA Prerequisites

F0101 – Product specification released (including approved specification change notices, deviations, and waivers)

ENT

L3

F0102 – Verification cross reference artifacts (minutes, actions, closure status) complete

ENT

L3

F0103 – Qualification test results reviewed ENT L3

F0104 – Acceptance test procedures and results reviewed ENT L3

F0105 – FRR completed successfully ENT L3

F0106 – SVR agenda coordinated and accepted ENT L3

F0107 – All system performance specification qualification test requirements successfully completed

ENT

L3

F0108 – Flight test verification activities complete ENT L3

F0109 – SRD verification evidence complete ENT L3

F02 – SVR/FCA Conducted

F0201 – SVR/FCA conducted, to include physical configuration audit EX L3

F0202 – Action items dispositioned and minutes generated EX L3

F0203 – Successful audit of engineering, planning, quality records, and acceptance test procedures

EX L3

F0204 – Affirmative answers to the exit questions in ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 and AFLCMC Systems Engineering Technical Review Guide (2016)

EX

L3

F0205 – 100% verified requirements traceability matrix EX L3

Event G – Production Readiness Review/Physical Configuration Audit

G01 – PRR/PCA Prerequisites

G0101 – Product Baseline Complete (including approved specification change notices, deviations, waivers and as built records)

ENT

L3

G0102 – Qualification test results available for reviewed ENT L3

G0103 – Approved installation drawings and documents reviewed ENT L3

G0104 – Acceptance test procedures and results reviewed ENT L3

G02 – PRR/PCA Event

G0201– PRR/PCA conducted and all planned program tasks associated with this review have successfully been closed.

EX

L3

G0202– Successful audit of production quality reports and ATP results

EX

L3

G0203 – PRR/PCA minutes approved EX L3

G0204 – PRR/PCA action items dispositioned EX L3