RFP-ATTCH5(TCTO).pdf

HSCG23-11-R-ACB023 RFP –ATTACHMENT 5

SURFACE FORCES TIME COMPLIANCE

TECHNICAL ORDER (TCTO) PROCESS

GUIDE

Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release. Distribution is unlimited.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: For classified documents, follow the procedures in DOD 5200.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, Section 5-705 or DOD 5200.1-R, Information Security Program Regulation, Chapter VI, Section 7.

For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

1 September 2009

RECORD OF CHANGES

DATE OF

CHANGE

DESCRIPTION

29 May 09 Added Record of Changes Page.

29 May 09 Chapter 2.C.18: Emphasized need to route and develop new MPCs and SICRs (for affected equipment) simultaneously with TCTOs.

29 May 09 Chapter 7 & Appendix A: These sections were re-written with more detailed format guidance for TCTO Developers, capturing lessons since implementation at SFLC.

29 May 09 Chapter 1.A.4 & 2.B.7: Clarified applicability of TCTO process for assets in acquisition.

1 Sep 09 Added Appendix P, a matrix of roles and responsibilities for submission, development, and implementation of TCTOs.

1 Sep 09 Changed ESD ACMS Maintenance Analyst to Product Line Maintenance Analyst throughout document.

1 Sep 09 Changed ESD Technical Writer to Product Line Technical Writer throughout document.

1 Sep 09 Chapter 2.C.13: Clarified semi-annual funding review procedures based on dissolution of a shared recapitalization budget in FY10, and segregation of AFC-45 funding by Product Line.

1 Sep 09 Chapter 2.C.18: Indicated ESD and Product Line roles in conducting Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Analysis in support of MRL development.

1 Sep 09 Chapter 2.C.19: Modified ESD and Product Line roles in contracting engineering development for a TCTO if capacity does not exist in the ESD.

1 Sep 09 Chapter 2.C.26: Documented SFLC ALD role in cataloguing NSNs.

1 Sep 09 Removed reference to Product Line Division Chief throughout document since this position has been disestablished.

1 Sep 09 Chapter 2.B.6: Outlined requirement for CG-7X to certify operational need in writing for any change intended to modify operational capability, in the event an ORD does not exist for the asset class.

1 Sep 09 Appendices B, C & I: Updated Flow Charts to align with all changes made in 11 Aug 09 update.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REFERENCES

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. General

CHAPTER 2: TIME COMPLIANCE TECHNICAL ORDER (TCTO)

A. TCTO Development Criteria B. TCTO Applicable Conditions C. TCTO Development Procedures D. Non-Modernized Unit TCTO Tracking E. Modernized Unit TCTO Tracking

CHAPTER 3: WORLD OF WORK (WOW) PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

A. Background B. WOW Prioritization

CHAPTER 4: MESSAGE TCTO

A. General B. Message TCTO Development and Tracking Procedures

CHAPTER 5: NON-STANDARD BOAT TCTO

A. General B. Guidelines C. Procedures D. TCTO Tracking for Non-Standard Boats

CHAPTER 6: AMPLIFYING REQUIREMENTS FOR NAVY-TYPE, NAVY-OWNED (NTNO)

EQUIPMENT

A. Navy-Type, Navy-Owned (NTNO) Equipment

CHAPTER 7: TCTO GUIDELINES

A. Guidelines B. Formatting

APPENDICES

A. Sample TCTO Text B. TCTO Flow Chart C. TCTO Electronic Systems TCTO Flow Chart D. TCTO Final Version Coordination Sheet E. S1000D Chapters F. TCTO Tracking Update Screen

G. Comprehensive TCTO Tracking Report H. Message TCTO Template I. Message TCTO Flow Chart J. WOW Prioritization Scoring Calculator K. Standard Rates Labor Calculator L. Prototype Evaluation Authorization Memo Templates M. Funding Determination Memo Template N. SFLC Feasibility Board Checklist O. TCTO Quality Assurance (QA) Checklist P. TCTO Roles and Responsibilities Matrix Q. Acronyms & Glossary of Terms

REFERENCES:

(a) (Aviation) TCTO Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-40

(b) Naval Engineering Manual, COMDTINST M9000.6 (series)

(c) Electronics Manual, COMDTINST M10550.25 (series)

(d) Surface Forces Configuration Control Board (SFCCB) Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-70-S

(draft)

(e) Major Systems Acquisitions Manual, COMDTINST M5000.10 (series)

(f) Ordnance Manual, COMDTINST M8000.2 (series)

(g) Financial Resource Management Manual (FRMM), COMDTINST M7100.3 (series)

(h) International Specifications for Technical Publications, S1000.D

(i) COMDT COGARD Washington DC 021925Z JAN 09/ALCOAST 005/09, CG-8, COMDTNOTE 7130

(j) Surface Forces CG Form 22 Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-20-S (draft)

(k) SFLC Preventive Maintenance Development Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-230-S

(l) U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (series)

NOTE

The Surface Forces Configuration Control Board and Surface Forces CG-22 Process Guides are currently under development; in the interim consult the (Aviation) Configuration Control Board Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-70, and (Aviation) CG Form 22 Process Guide, CGTO PG-85-00-20.

http://cgweb.arsc.uscg.mil/manuals/CGTO/PG850040/PG850040.pdf http://www.s1000d.org/ http://cgweb.arsc.uscg.mil/manuals/CGTO/PG850020/PG850020.pdf http://cgweb.arsc.uscg.mil/manuals/CGTO/PG850020/PG850020.pdf

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A. General

1. The Surface Forces TCTO Process Guide is an adaptation of the Aviation TCTO Process Guide {reference (a)}, modified for application to Surface Forces. This Process Guide has greater detail than reference (a), given that this document is intended to serve as a “training resource” for the users of the new TCTO, who generally speaking, may not be familiar with the new CG Logistics Model.

Furthermore, this Process Guide is intended to be a “living document” with changes made as the SFLC and C4IT Service Center mature, and users become more familiar with the processes outlined within the Guide.

2. This Process Guide supersedes the Engineering Change and configuration management processes outlined in Chapter 041 of the Naval Engineering Manual, and Chapter 5 of the Electronics Manual {references (b) and (c) respectively}. One goal of Logistics Modernization is to standardize configuration management policy and processes, to the greatest extent possible, throughout the Coast Guard. A component of this effort is the adaptation of TCTOs by Surface Forces, in place of Engineering Changes. Future revisions to references (b) and (c) will make reference to TCTOs instead of Engineering Changes.

3. The processes outlined in this guide apply to all Cutters, Barges, and Boats. The term “asset” (in the context of this Process Guide) is a general term used to describe Coast Guard Cutters, Barges, and Boats.

4. This Process Guide applies to assets throughout the entire life-cycle. During acquisition, any changes executed to an asset class after one or more such assets have already been delivered, must be retrofitted, or a new asset sub-type must be created and concurrently authorized by CG-45, CG- 731/751, CG-64, CG-113, and CG-9 (the Tri-Partite). The decision to establish a sub-class is driven primarily by one or both of the following factors, as determined by the Tri-Partite:

a. The configuration differences cause an appreciable difference in the “per operating hour” cost.

b. There is a significant difference in logistics support requirements.

5. This guide applies to assets and units that have undergone Logistics Modernization (Modernized Units), and those that are operating under a traditional Naval Engineering and Electronics support infrastructure (Non-Modernized Units). Where differences exist in processes for Modernized and Non-Modernized Units, these differences are indicated in the Process Guide text.

6. The TCTO Process Guide also applies to personnel protective equipment and lifesaving gear intended specifically for use aboard assets when one or more such assets are assigned to units that have undergone Logistics Modernization, and if this equipment is enrolled in ALMIS.

7. TCTOs are required for the following configuration change proposals:

a. Changes to an asset’s mission characteristics or capability.

b. Changes in weight or moment that significantly affect intact or damaged stability. Although each case is unique due to different limiting factors, the following general criteria applies:

• Non-Self-Righting Small Boats (less than 65 feet in length): Changes that create more than a 0.002 ft change in the center of gravity in any direction (vertical, longitudinal, or transverse) or net weight changes of more than 1/5 of 1% of the full load displacement require a TCTO.

• All Other Assets: Changes that create more than a 0.001 ft change in the center of gravity in any direction (vertical, longitudinal, or transverse) or net weight changes of more than 1/20 of 1% of the full load displacement require a TCTO.

c. Changes to hull structure, space allocation, watertight integrity, or compartmentation.

d. Change to any system that affects spare parts allowances.

e. Changes to an approved fluid, or paint system.

f. Changes requiring prototype evaluation.

g. Changes that require Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) or TEMPEST Inspections.

h. Form, fit or function changes. A change to form is any change that affects the weight, balance, or moment of inertia of a component. A change to fit is any change that affects an interface with other components. A change to function is any change that affects operational characteristics.

i. Changes that require software modifications.

Given that policies and processes governing software procurement, refreshment, recapitalization, and documentation are not aligned throughout the Coast Guard, all required software modifications affecting equipment installed on CG surface assets must be evaluated by the appropriate Product Line Manager to determine ultimate method of documentation (including through a TCTO).

j. Any change that modifies the Damage Control classification of a fitting.

k. Any change that modifies equipment, components, or materials used in a system, even if it is not classified as a “form, fit or function” change still requires a TCTO. An example includes replacement of an old fan motor (no longer manufactured) with a new fan motor that is a direct replacement with the same wiring connections, weight, and performance characteristics. Even though this example does not constitute a “form, fit, or function change,” it still requires a TCTO to document the modification in asset configuration.

l. Fleet-wide time-sensitive inspections or changes.

m. Revisions to previously approved TCTOs.

8. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Configuration Control Board approval are required for the changes listed in Paragraphs 1.A.7.a through 1.A.7.i. The changes listed in Paragraphs 1.A.7.j through 1.A.7.l do not require Phase 1 or Phase 2 SFCCB approval. Detailed Surface Forces Configuration Control Board procedures and processes are provided in reference (d).

9. Any proposed change that is intended to modify an asset’s mission characteristics or capability must be accompanied by a modification to the asset’s Operational Requirements Document (ORD).

The ORD is a top-level decision document which establishes the minimum acceptable standards of performance and optimum performance goals for an asset. Details regarding ORD development and requirements are contained in reference (e).

Minor capability changes that come about as a result of replacing an obsolete component or software system with the equivalent currently available component or system (termed

“Technology Refreshment”) do not require an ORD. An example includes the replacement of an obsolete RADAR (no longer produced or supported by the OEM) with the same model RADAR built 10 years later, that now has automated target tracking, collision avoidance warnings, and

Automated Information System integration software. Although these capabilities did not exist in the previous version, the intent of the Radar replacement was to address the obsolete system, not to increase capability. The increased capability was simply an incidental outcome of the replacement, and not the primary intent of the configuration change.

CHAPTER 2: TIME COMPLIANCE TECHNICAL ORDER (TCTO)

A. TCTO Development Criteria: During the lifecycle of an asset, there are often many excellent ideas on how to improve the operational capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the asset. Unfortunately, the Coast Guard has limited resources (both personnel and funding) to execute TCTOs, and only a very small portion of these ideas may be implemented. It is of utmost importance, therefore, that each and every prospective TCTO is evaluated through an objective set of criteria to ensure that changes are made only after a thorough analysis of the business case to make that change. These business analyses must evaluate life-cycle costs, safety, law/regulation, logistics, operational availability, maintainability, design interface, training, human factors, and facilities. Each TCTO requiring Phase I review shall undergo a review by the SFLC’s Feasibility Board to ensure that only the most valuable changes are executed.

Furthermore, any TCTO that results in a change to operational capability must be accompanied by a change to the Operational Requirements Document (ORD), as defined in reference (e), and must include requisite lifecycle funding from the program sponsor (CG-7 or CG-9). Details regarding thresholds for SFCCB approval of TCTOs, and detailed procedures for prioritizing work are contained in Chapter 3 of this Process Guide and reference (d).

B. TCTO Applicable Conditions:

1. Close coordination is required amongst CG-45, CG-64, C4IT Service Center, and SFLC during all aspects of the TCTO process.

2. CG-9 serves as the Chair of the Surface Forces Configuration Control Board (SFCCB) only for those asset classes in acquisition. The applicable CG-7 staff chairs the SFCCB for asset classes in sustainment. Details regarding the SFCCB Process are contained in reference (d).

3. Once a TCTO is initiated, it may be cancelled at any phase of the process as indicated in Chapter 2 and Appendix B.

4. If a proposed TCTO is rejected or cancelled at any point in the TCTO development process (prior to Phase 1 CCB), the Product Line shall inform the applicable SFCCB to ensure there is adequate visibility of this cancellation. If the Product Line desires to cancel a TCTO after Phase 1 approval has been granted, the Product Line must seek permission from the SFCCB, as outlined in Chapter 2.C.

The Product Line Engineering Section and the ESD Technical Writer shall be notified so the change may be cancelled in the Asset Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) and SFLC Central Projects. The originator shall be notified in writing by the Product Line when a TCTO is cancelled.

5. Funding for all TCTOs must conform to policy discussed in the CG Finance Resource Management Manual {reference (g)} and reference (i), which discusses thresholds for use of AC&I and O&E funding. In general, O&E funding may be used for replacement of systems or components, technology refreshment, safety modifications, and repairs. System replacement includes activities that involve replacement of parts and components necessary to preserve the life of an asset.

Technology refreshment may involve minor performance enhancements, but are intended to improve maintainability of the asset. Safety modifications are those configuration changes intended to allow an asset to perform its missions in a safe and efficient manner. TCTOs intended for major renovations and improvements are generally funded with AC&I funding, and include work associated with major service-life extensions, and major changes that improve operational capability. A TCTO can generally only be funded with one type of O&E funding (AFC-45/42 or AFC-30), and cannot be funded by both O&E and AC&I funding; mixing funding types violates policy provided in reference

(g). It is incumbent upon the Product Line to assess the appropriate funding type early in the TCTO Process, and ensure that the assessment conforms to applicable CG financial policy.

6. All proposed TCTOs submitted with the intent of improving operational capability require a change to the Operational Requirements Document (ORD), and an obligation of lifecycle funding from the TCTO sponsor (typically CG-7 for assets in sustainment and CG-9 for assets in acquisition) if the change affects lifecycle cost. In the event an ORD does not exist for an asset class, CG-731/751 must certify in writing that the change is indeed an operational requirement. Changes without this documentation and adequate funding shall not be processed for development.

7. Once a TCTO is in the deployment phase, it shall be completed on all assets among the class within the time constraints provided in the TCTO unless cancelled by the SFCCB. A TCTO shall not be approved without a fully developed funding plan.

a. As noted in Chapter 1, during acquisition, any changes executed to an asset class after one or more such assets have already been delivered, must be retrofitted, or a new asset sub-type must be created and concurrently authorized by CG-45, CG-731/751, CG-64, CG-113, and CG-9X.

Funding for such changes must be discussed and agreed upon amongst the aforementioned HQ staff.

8. The process flow for a revised TCTO is the same as an original TCTO, except a revision TCTO must be reviewed by the Senior ACMS Analyst before the TCTO goes to print. If any additions or corrections are required to a published TCTO, a revised TCTO will be published. The revised TCTO is published in its entirety with all changes identified by revision bars.

9. As stated in Chapter 1, the policies and processes governing software procurement, refreshment, recapitalization, and documentation are not aligned throughout the Coast Guard, and often difficult to manage due to a number of factors. Therefore, it is critical that all TCTOs that affect a change to software are identified and evaluated early on in the TCTO process to ensure a smooth transition, and that all software and hardware design interface issues are captured.

C. TCTO Development Procedures: Appendix A contains an example TCTO that may be used as a guide when developing and reviewing a TCTO. Detailed flow charts outlining the TCTO process are contained in Appendix B and Appendix C. Furthermore, The TCTO Template, TCTO Number Request, and TCTO Template instructions may be downloaded from the CG-web at http://cgweb.ARSC.uscg.mil/eisd/tcto/index.cfm. The specific procedures for developing a TCTO are as follows:

1. The TCTO process starts with an idea. This idea may start with suggestions from the field, MISHAPs, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Service Bulletins, or changes to operational requirements through Operational Requirements Documents (ORDs). They may also be initiated from within a Product Line, based on an Unsatisfactory Report (UR) for an affected part, an asset MISHAP, or from parts reliability data.

Anyone in the Coast Guard can raise an issue that starts the TCTO process, however, TCTOs must undergo initial screening by the Chain of Command, Prime Unit, Product Line, and C4IT Service

Center (when applicable).

2. TCTOs shall be initiated by submitting Form CG-22 with an attached draft TCTO, to the respective Product Line through the chain of command. TCTOs shall be endorsed by one of the http://cgweb.arsc.uscg.mil/eisd/tcto/index.cfm authorities listed below, commenting specifically on the feasibility of the change based on the criteria established in reference (d). If the change is an operational improvement, the endorsing authority must comment specifically on the operational scope of the improvement, and specific impact on mission execution.

• Cutter Commanding Officer (O-5 and above)

• Group Commander

• Sector Commander

• DOG Unit Commander

• Training Center Commanding Officer

• District Chief of Response or Prevention

• OPCOM/FORCECOM (O-5 and above)

• Headquarters Staff (O-5 and above)

• Asset Project Office Commanding Officer

• Product Line Manager

• Engineering Services Division (GS-14/O-5 and above)

• C4IT Service Center of Excellence Commanding Officer

• Electronics Support Unit Commanding Officer

3. Any draft TCTO that proposes an improvement in asset operational capability must be accompanied by an Operational Requirements Document (ORD), and an endorsement by the respective CG-7 staff (CG-731 or CG-751), with appropriate funding for development, implementation, and full life-cycle support costs (including inventory, Standard Support Level (SSL) increases, personnel resources, training, etc.). Note that CG-45 and CG-64 staffs (along with the SFLC and C4IT Service Center) may provide assistance in developing these ORDs.

4. Draft TCTOs shall adhere to the format contained in Appendix A, and shall include as much of the following information as available to the originator.

a. Application: Must include all applicable assets.

b. Purpose: List the intended purpose of the change.

c. TCTO Coordinator: Leave blank.

d. When to be Accomplished: Write down the recommended time frame for the change.

Typically, unless the change is safety-related, the default time is four years (one availability cycle).

e. By Whom to be Accomplished: Indicate the optimal installation activity (unit, depot, contractor, etc.).

f. What is Required: Include a cost estimate, list of parts, stock numbers, references, special tools, and personnel required to perform the installation. Also include any changes in spare parts inventories. Furthermore, estimate the personnel required to perform the work, including estimated labor hours.

g. How Work is Accomplished: Provide a description of how the work shall be performed, with sufficient detail to allow the Product Line and Prime Unit begin development of a TCTO.

h. Supplemental Information: Include estimated weight and moment information, including the estimated weight removed or added, and the location of the net weight change in reference to the Longitudinal Center of Gravity (LCG), Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG), and Transverse Center of Gravity (TCG). Also indicate any changes that may impact training requirements.

i. Records: Include all affected drawings, technical publications, and Maintenance Procedure Cards (MPCs), and if equipped, impacts to Operational Sequencing Systems.

Operational Sequencing Systems (OSS) includes Engineering Operational Sequencing Systems (EOSS) and Combat Systems Operational Sequencing Systems (CSOSS). OSS provides ship-specific sets of procedures, diagrams, and status boards tailored for cutter configuration, and watch stations to support initialization and casualty/emergency systems control. CSOSS and EOSS are Navy-supported systems currently installed on the WMSL, and will be installed on other CG cutters in the future. OSS Systems are supported through the Navy Surface Warfare Center (NSWC).

5. When the Product Line receives a properly endorsed CG-22 and draft TCTO, they shall forward copies to the Prime Unit for initial validation, and begin taking action to process and track the draft TCTO. If the draft TCTO pertains to C4IT equipment, a copy shall also be forwarded to the C4IT Service Center. The Product Line shall hold routine audio conferences with the Prime Unit and C4IT Service Center to discuss status of pending draft TCTOs, and to coordinate the TCTO development process.

Unlike the Aviation Logistics Center, a significant amount of TCTO technical development and implementation for C4IT Equipment occurs at the C4IT Service Center. The C4IT Service Center includes three “Centers of Excellence” (COEs): C2CEN, TISCOM, and OSC. Within these COEs, there are Core Technologies (CTs), aligned similarly to Product Lines, but responsible for a “family” of C4IT systems that apply across multiple Coast Guard Product Lines. An example is the

Navigation CT, responsible for engineering and logistics for all electronic navigation systems installed on surface assets, Command Centers, and Vessel Traffic Centers. Under the current

Logistics Center construct, the C4IT Service Center COEs perform some of the same roles of the SFLC ESD for C4IT TCTOs. Specifically, the C4IT Service Center COEs are responsible for technical development of draft C4IT TCTOs and accompanying technical documentation. The C4IT Service Center is also responsible for execution of approved C4IT TCTOs. The SFLC ESD

Electronic Support Branch (ESD-ESB-ELEX) serves as the “asset integrator” assisting the C4IT Service Center with refining C4IT TCTOs, finalizing MPCs (adapting to particular assets), validating

RCM analyses, and refining inventory and stocking requirements. Each SFLC Product Line has a staff-member assigned who is responsible for coordinating development and implementation of C4IT

TCTOs between the SFLC and C4IT Service Center, recognizing that a significant amount of technical development occurs within the C4IT Service Center. Particular attention must be applied to tracking progress of C4IT changes given the new state of both organizations, geographic distribution of personnel involved in the process, and anticipated changes associated with maturity of both the SFLC and C4IT Service Center.

6. The Product Line Engineering Section shall enter a scanned copy of the CG-22 and draft TCTO into the SFLC Central Projects database for tracking purposes. This database shall be used to track all pending TCTOs. TCTOs that have been received by the Product Line, but have not yet been vetted by the Prime Unit are considered to be in “Concept” status. This database is located at:

http://elccentral.uscg.mil/forums/elc/dispatch.cgi/elcproj/viewReports/ReportELCMain. Once the Prime Unit and Product Line have started an initial validation of the draft TCTO, the Product Line Engineering Section shall update the status of the TCTO in SFLC Central Projects database by changing the status from “Concept” to “Validation”. The respective C4IT Service Center CT shall team with the Prime Unit and Product Line to validate C4IT changes, commenting on impact to fleet readiness, and suitability for Phase I SFCCB review.

7. If the draft TCTO is such that it may impact the immediate readiness of an entire asset class, the Product Line Manager shall promptly notify CG-451 to discuss the issue so that it is raised at the next http://elccentral.uscg.mil/forums/elc/dispatch.cgi/elcproj/viewReports/ReportELCMain

Tri-Partite (Tri-P) Meeting. This notification may be accomplished by telephone, e-mail, or fax correspondence.

8. For all proposed changes requiring SFCCB approval, the Product Line Manager and CG-451 will discuss whether the change is worthy of consideration for approval at the Phase 1 SFCCB (based on the criteria in Chapter 3). This discussion may also be deferred by the Product Line Manager until after the SFLC Feasibility Board has reviewed the proposed TCTO.

9. After receiving the CG-22 and draft TCTO, the Product Line and Prime Unit shall develop sufficient information so that the SFLC Feasibility Board may determine whether the change should undergo further development, or be disapproved. All draft TCTOs shall be scored by the Product Line Engineering Section Chief using the World of Work (WOW) prioritization criteria referenced in Chapter 3. The SFLC Feasibility Board shall also apply the “SFLC Feasibility Board Checklist” contained in Appendix N to each proposed change in order to verify that all draft TCTOs have adequate justification for the investment of funding and resources. The SFLC Feasibility Board shall forward findings and recommendations back to the Product Line Manager for further action. The SFLC Feasibility Board has the authority to recommend disapproval of proposed TCTOs based on the criteria contained in reference (d), and to forward changes back to the Product Line that require further development, justification, or re-evaluation of WOW Scoring criteria.

a. While developing a government estimate for the proposed TCTO (which is part of the information necessary for presentation to the SFLC Feasibility Board and developing a WOW Score, the Product Line Engineering Section Chief shall determine the appropriate funding source (O&E or AC&I) based on the guidance provided in references (d) and (i). Once this determination has been made, the Product Line Engineering Section Chief shall ensure that a decision memo is “written to file” documenting the funding classification, along with the justification for this decision. An example of this memo to file is included as Appendix M. For C4IT Changes, the respective C4IT Service Center CT Manager shall write the aforementioned memo to file, and attach a copy to the draft TCTO.

10. If the SFLC Feasibility Board deems that the proposed TCTO is worthy of further development, the Board will make this recommendation to the Product Line Manager, and forward him/her the completed Phase 1 SFCCB Checklist contained in reference (d).

11. The Product Line Manager shall determine if a Phase 1 SFCCB is required based on a review of the criteria contained in Chapter 1. If a Phase 1 SFCCB is not required, and funds are immediately available, the TCTO will be forwarded to the ESD ACMS Analyst for formal TCTO tracking, as outlined in Paragraph 2.C.16 below. If funding is unavailable for development and implementation, the Product Line Manager shall place the TCTO in a queue awaiting funding.

12. If a Phase 1 SFCCB is required, and the proposed change is based on one of the criteria listed below, the Product Line Manager shall seek funding through all available means to develop and implement the change as soon as possible.

• Urgent safety issue.

• A change that is required in order to gain compliance with a law or regulation that cannot be mitigated through other means.

• An urgent operational requirement that has a significant impact on fleet readiness and the capacity to perform chartered missions (as determined by CG-7).

13. If funds are unavailable, or the TCTO does not meet any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 2.C.12, the TCTO shall be placed in a queue awaiting funds.

a. AFC-45 Funded TCTO Queue: These pending projects shall be reviewed during a semi-annual Product Line/SFCCB funding assessment. It is expected that each Product Line will have an open backlog of pending TCTOs, awaiting funding and development given the historic volume of changes and finite resources. This semi-annual assessment consists of a review by the Product Line Managers and SFCCB of all pending TCTOs (across all Product Lines) and prioritization of these TCTOs based on WOW Score and available recapitalization funding. Note that the Small Boat Product Line will have a separate assessment meeting because of the different SFCCB membership (CG-731 as opposed to CG-751), and the fact that recapitalization funding for Small Boats is segregated from Cutters. This semi-annual funding assessment is required until each Product Line has a better understanding of the cost per operating hour for their respective assets, and the number of backlogged TCTOs has been reduced significantly.

b. AFC-42 Funded TCTO Queue: These pending projects will be prioritized by the C4IT Service Center (for cutters and boats) based on WOW Score and available AFC-42 recapitalization funding.

14. If Phase 1 SFCCB approval is required, and funding is available, the voting members of the SFCCB shall validate the WOW Prioritization score provided by the Product Line, and then make a Phase 1 approval determination. The voting members of the SFCCB consist of staff assigned to CG- 731/751, CG-64, CG-451, and CG-1134 at the O-5 level. For assets in sustainment, the CG-731/751 staff member serves as the president of the board; for assets in acquisition, CG-9X serves as the president. Note that members of both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 SFCCBs are members typically assigned to the respective boat or cutter Tri-Partite Board.

15. If Phase 1 SFCCB approval is obtained and funding exists for further development, CG-45 (O-6 level) will formally task the SFLC CO with evaluating the proposal and developing a prototype, with deadlines based on the WOW prioritization score and any other relevant factors. If an operational evaluation is required, the Product Line will task the appropriate Prime Unit. Phase 1 CCB approval comes with an implicit authorization to execute a prototype within the limitations proscribed by the respective Product Line Engineering Section. If the Prime Unit cannot conduct the operational evaluation, CG-751 or CG-731 will formally task another Station/ANT or Cutter (as appropriate) to serve as the prototype unit for the proposed change. Template Prototype Authorization memos are provided in Appendix L.

16. The following are tracking activities that occur to a draft TCTO that has been approved by the Phase 1 SFCCB (if required), or when a PLM grants concept approval (for changes that do not require Phase 1 SFCCB approval):

a. TCTO Tracking (Non-Modernized Units): If the draft TCTO is approved by the Phase 1 SFCCB, or a Phase 1 SFCCB is not required, at this point the project will be updated in the SFLC Central Projects Database, changing the status from “Validation” to “Development”.

b. TCTO Tracking (Modernized Units): If the draft TCTO is approved by the Phase 1 SFCCB, or a Phase 1 SFCCB is not required, at this point a TCTO Number Request and Tracking Form (form location: http://cgweb.arsc.uscg.mil/eisd/tcto/index.cfm) will be completed. The sequentially indexed and unique TCTO number is obtained from the ESD ACMS Analyst, using the ALMIS TCTO numbering function. All data entered into ACMS shall be entered by the ACMS Maintenance Analyst. The CG-22 Form (that accompanied the draft TCTO) is subsequently closed, with a statement indicating the new TCTO Number. In addition to ACMS entries, the Product Line Engineering section will update the Project in the SFLC Central Projects Database, changing the status from “Validation” to “Development”.

C4IT TCTOs that have been approved by the Phase I SFCCB shall be forwarded to the respective C4IT Service Center Core Technology (CT) by the Product Line for technical development. The C4IT Service Center is responsible for fully developing all technical aspects of C4IT TCTOs, and providing comprehensive input to the Product Line on development of allowances, Supply Item

Change Records, Maintenance Procedure Cards, and installation kits. Note that prototype implementation at the Prime Unit must be coordinated through the Product Line.

17. Immediately following Phase I SFCCB, the appropriate SFLC Product Line Engineering Section will develop a draft TCTO. Specifically, Technical Writers inside the Product Line will collate all technical data from the Product Line and Prime Unit, and publish a draft TCTO. The Technical Writer shall highlight sections of the draft TCTO that require additional technical development. For C4IT TCTOs, the C4IT Service Center performs this function. The format of the draft TCTO shall conform to the template provided in Appendix A.

a. For C4IT TCTOs, the work described in the aforementioned paragraph shall be accomplished within the respective C4IT COE.

18. The Product Line Technical Writer shall subsequently route the draft TCTO to the Product Line Maintenance Analyst. The Maintenance Analyst will continue technical development of the TCTO, identifying changes to the Maintenance Requirements List (MRL), identifying required MPCs (or MPC changes), changes to Technical Publications, and CG Drawings associated with the TCTO.

MRL and MPC changes shall be initiated by the Maintenance Analyst using Form CG-22, and developed concurrently with the TCTO per the guidance provided in reference (k). The Maintenance Analyst may also engage the ESD (as required), requesting additional support for specific technical development.

a. For C4IT TCTOs, the work described in the aforementioned paragraph shall be accomplished within the respective C4IT Service Center COE, working in concert with the SFLC ESD Electronic Support Branch (ESD-ESB-ELEX). Note that SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX serves as the “asset integrator” for C4IT TCTOs installed on surface assets, ensuring all design interface issues are resolved. The SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX also performs final review and development of C4IT technical documentation and MPCs, ensuring that the information is adapted to specific asset classes.

b. If the Product Line does not have staff trained in performing Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Analysis, the MRL modifications may need to be developed or reviewed by the ESD Aging Cutter/Boat Branch. Furthermore, there may be some aspects of TCTO technical development that are beyond the capabilities of the Product Line. In these cases, the Product Line shall request assistance from the ESD NAME Branch.

The C4IT Service Center COEs must work closely together with the SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX on development of TCTOs, MPCs, and SICRs given that development of C4IT TCTOs is a shared function between the two organizations.

c. It is extremely important that MPC and MRL changes are developed concurrently with the TCTO. Most TCTOs will affect a change that impacts an MPC, or will result in development of a new MPC. It is advisable to route and develop these MPCs concurrently with the TCTO to ensure both are approved and released simultaneously.

19. In many cases technical development of a TCTO may need to be contracted out given limited personnel resources.

a. SFLC: If capacity does not exist within the ESD to provide TCTO development support in the time constraints identified by the Product Line, the ESD will provide immediate notification to the Product Line. The Product Line may then make a determination on whether the work will be out-sourced. In the case of out-sourcing, the Product Line shall generate Scopes of Work (SOWs) and government estimates, requesting assistance from the ESD as appropriate. Generally speaking, the contracting for this work will occur in the affected Product Line Procurement Section, and will leverage COTR capacity inside the Product Line Engineering Section. In the case of C4IT TCTOs, this work is done at the C4IT Service Center.. When estimating the cost to implement a TCTO (and developing lifecycle cost estimates for the WOW), the Product Line must account for the cost of contracting technical development.

All tasking between the SFLC ESD and Product Line will be accomplished using SFLC Central

Activities.

b. C4IT Service Center: If capacity does not exist within the C4IT Service Center to provide TCTO development support in the time constraints identified by the C4IT CT, the CT may then make a determination on whether the work will be out-sourced. In the case of out-sourcing, the Product Line and CT must account for the cost of contracting technical development.

20. The Product Line Maintenance Analyst is responsible for identifying the requirement for Supply Item Change Records (SICRs), and forwarding these requirements to the Product Line Engineering Section for initiation. In the case of C4IT TCTOs, these SICRs shall be initiated and developed from within the C4IT Service Center COE, and forwarded to the SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX for review and further action. All draft SICRs shall be forwarded with a copy of the TCTO for review and approval by the Product Line Supply Section, including the appropriate Equipment Specialist, Inventory Manager (IM) and Supply Section Leader. Once the Supply Section concurs with the proposed scope and recommendations proposed in the SICR(s), they will order parts in support of a prototype installation. For AFC-42 funded C4IT TCTOs, the C4IT Service Center will normally order parts in support of the prototype once SICRs have been approved and loaded into AMMIS.

a. Non-Modernized Product Lines may use Item Entry Proposals (IEPs) in place of SICRs until SICRs are adopted by the SFLC Asset Logistics Division.

The identification of spare parts, allowances, and installation parts is a collaborative effort between the SFLC ESD, Product Line Supply and Engineering Sections, and C4IT Service Center CT (for C4IT TCTOs); this effort is ideally accomplished in committee, especially for complex TCTOs.

21. After the Product Line Maintenance Analyst and Supply Section have made changes to the Draft TCTO, copies are forwarded concurrently by the Maintenance Analyst to the ESD Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering Branch (NAME) for technical review and input as appropriate. Note that http://elccentral.uscg.mil/forums this review should be an iterative process if changes are required that have an impact in more than one area. For instance, if a change involving installation of new electronics gear requires an increase in air conditioning capacity (due to increased heat load), this may require weight compensation, and an increase in electrical load capacity. Thus, for more complex changes, it is efficient for technical experts within the ESD NAME Branch to work in collaboration. The ESD NAME Branch shall conduct the following technical reviews, or indicate that no review is required (as applicable):

a. Pollution Prevention Review: The Pollution Prevention Coordinator will review each draft TCTO, and determine if modifications are required to the Authorized Chemical List (ACL). The Pollution Prevention Coordinator will work with the Product Line Supply Section Equipment Specialist to minimize the use of new HAZMAT and changes to the ACL. If an equivalent chemical is already in use on the asset class that meets the new application requirements, the objective is to use this existing chemical instead of increasing the number of different chemicals on the ACL.

b. Stability Review: The ESD NAME Branch shall provide weight, moment, and center of gravity (TCG, LCG, VCG) calculations for each draft TCTO. Where necessary, the ESD NAME Branch shall provide recommendations on ballast installation or design modifications to maintain satisfactory stability and sea-keeping characteristics. Where necessary, they shall also provide recommendations on any required structural modifications necessary to support the proposed change. In all cases, the ESD NAME Branch shall log the weight, moment, and center of gravity changes through the lifecycle of each asset class.

c. Auxiliary Systems Review: The ESD NAME Branch shall conduct the following evaluations of Auxiliary System design interface issues:

• Evaluate each TCTO to verify that required heating, ventilation and air conditioning

(HVAC) capacity is adequate, and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications (this includes an evaluation of the heat load generated by any new electronic equipment or machinery, and identification of any required modifications to ventilation, air conditioning, or heating systems).

• Evaluate each TCTO to verify that any required distributed fluid system capacities and piping are adequate, and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications (this includes compressed air systems, fuel, lubricating oil, cooling water systems, potable water, feed-water, hydraulic systems, combustion air and exhaust systems).

• Evaluate the impact of the TCTO to installed auxiliary systems, to verify adequate capacity, and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications (this shall include water makers, boilers, compressors, incinerators, HPUs, steering gear, flight safety equipment, pumps, etc.).

• Evaluate each TCTO to verify that any required weight handling systems are adequate, and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications.

d. Propulsion Systems Review: The ESD NAME Branch shall conduct the following evaluations of Propulsion System design interface issues:

• Evaluate each TCTO for airborne noise and vibration impact, and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications.

• Evaluate each TCTO for propulsion powering impact, and when necessary provide recommendations for modifications to prevent overloading and degraded reliability of propulsion equipment. In certain cases, this could include conducting underway propulsion performance trials (during the prototype evaluation) and modifications of either the speed/pitch profiles for controllable pitch propeller equipped vessels or modifying the pitch of fixed pitch propellers.

• Evaluate impact of the TCTO on equipment access (i.e. Engine and Reduction Gear removal routes), and where necessary provide recommendations for modifications.

e. Electrical System Review: The ESD NAME Branch shall conduct the following evaluations of Electrical System design interface issues:

• Evaluate each change against existing plant and/or distribution system equipment to ensure adequate capacities, ratings, and sizes. Where necessary, provide recommendations for modifications or analysis (this includes generators, switchboards, breakers, transformers, cables, wire-ways, load centers, panel boards, UPS, IC systems, machinery control/monitoring systems, etc.).

• Evaluate each change against applicable standards, requirements, and policies.

• Evaluate each change to assess any power quality issues, and when necessary provide recommendations for modifications.

22. The C4IT Service Center shall evaluate whether each proposed change requires a TEMPEST or Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Inspection during the prototype evaluation phase. If so, they shall begin coordination with the respective Product Line to accomplish testing. TEMPEST is an unclassified short name referring to investigations and studies of compromising emanations.

TEMPEST and EMC Inspections are typically required for certain electronic communication installations.

23. The Product Line Maintenance Analyst shall compile all updates and corrections from the ESD NAME Branch and C4IT Service Center (as applicable) to the draft TCTO and forward these to the ESD Technical Writer. The ESD Technical Writer shall make corrections and issue a revised TCTO for concurrent review by the Product Line Engineering Section Chief and Manager.

a. For C4IT TCTOs, the respective C4IT COE shall work with the SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX to compile all updates from the ESD NAME Branch and C4IT Service Center. A smooth draft of the TCTO will be developed by the ESD Technical Writer, and issued for concurrent review by the C4IT CT Manager, SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX Branch Chief, Product Line Engineering Section Chief, and Product Line Manager.

24. After changes to the TCTO are complete, the Product Line Technical Writer shall review and make any corrections to the TCTO draft, reporting to the Product Line Engineering Section Chief when the TCTO is ready for prototype evaluation.

25. When directed by the Product Line, the Prime Unit (or unit designated in writing by CG-731/751) shall prototype the TCTO. The Product Line, C4IT Service Center CT (for C4IT TCTOs) and Prime Unit shall jointly generate a prototype evaluation plan, and review installation procedures, parts lists, and other technical information required to conduct operational testing and evaluation. The C4IT Service Center CT has the lead for plan development on all C4IT TCTOs, and obtains input from the respective Product Line. Each prototype evaluation plan shall consider the 10 elements of Logistics, as indicated below:

• Design interface

• Maintenance planning

• Manpower and personnel

• Supply support

• Support equipment

• Technical data (to include CG Drawings, Technical Manuals, Illustrated Parts

Breakdowns, OSS, etc.)

• Training and Training Support

• Computer Resources Support

• Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation (PHS&T)

• Facilities

26. Based on the results of the prototype evaluation, the Product Line shall accomplish the actions listed below. For C4IT TCTOs, these actions will be completed (in concert) by the respective C4IT Service Center COE, SFLC ESD-ESB-ELEX, and Product Line:

a. Make any required changes to MPCs and draft TCTO installation procedures.

b. Identify any discrepancies with installation kits, and submit or update SICRs to address inventory or allowance corrections.

c. The SFLC ALD loads unique descriptions for each item-of-supply and inputs all coded technical and management data into the Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) for the purpose of obtaining an NSN for any new parts required to execute the TCTO or associated MPCs.

d. Make updates to CSOSS or EOSS software, if the TCTO impacts Operational Sequencing Systems.

e. Identify any discrepancies with technical publications, CG Drawings, or other technical information related to the change, and submit new CG-22s (as required) to accomplish changes previously unidentified prior to the prototype evaluation.

f. Make recommendations regarding suitability for fleet-wide implementation.

g. Take action to address any TEMPEST, EMC, electrical load capacity, electrical distribution, or other issues identified during the prototype evaluation.

h. Work with the Prime Unit to make changes to the draft TCTO.

i. Re-score the draft TCTO using the WOW prioritization criteria. This new score is calculated with updated information gleaned during the prototype evaluation. This includes (but is not limited to) actual installation costs, inventory costs, and projected maintenance/lifecycle costs given information gleaned during the prototype evaluation. This allows re-scoring of the WOW facilitates a more accurate assessment of the “business case” for executing the change on a fleet-wide basis.

27. A Phase 2 SFCCB shall convene if the change requires SFCCB approval (see Chapter 1). The Phase 2 SFCCB members are the same as those identified for the Phase 1 SFCCB. If Phase 2 SFCCB is required, the Product Line Manager shall forward a recommendation along with the draft TCTO to the SFCCB Coordinator through the ESD Chief (or representative designated by the SFLC CO) with an information copy to the appropriate Prime Unit.

28. The Phase 2 SFCCB shall determine whether to go forth with fleet-wide implementation based on the information collected during development of the TCTO and subsequent prototype evaluation. The Phase 2 SFCCB shall also validate the updated WOW Prioritization score provided by the Product Line.