MMIIISD-HB-63-1101 TBC Rev 9.pdf

MINUTEMAN III SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

HANDBOOK 63-1101 Rev 9

Technical Baseline Changes

This document is for “Information Only”. It is intended to provide a simplified explanation of how to execute specific programmatic tasks/processes, provide organizational points of contacts, and applicable Air Force directives and guidance. This document does not supersede any government directive, pamphlet or handbook.

Individuals using this document should always read and refer to the government references provided for specific guidance.

ACCESSIBILITY: This publication is available for download on the MMIIISD website at Governance - Home (dps.mil)

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication

OPR: AFNWC/NM Certified by: AFNWC/NM

Name of OPR, Jessy Jones

Supersedes: AFNWC/NM-HB-63-1101, 08 May 2023 Pages:14

This publication implements Department of Defense Instruction 5000.88, Engineering of Defense Systems. It provides guidance and procedures for processing and management of Minuteman III (MMIII) technical baseline changes. It is applicable to the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center MMIII Directorate including its direct-support contractors and sub-contractors at any location. Ensure all records generated as a result of the processes prescribed in this publication adhere to Air Force Instruction 33-322, Records Management and Information Governance Program, and are disposed in accordance with the Air Force Records Disposition Schedule, which is located in the Air Force Records Information Management System. Refer recommended changes and questions about this publication to the Office of Primary Responsibility.

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/21300/Governance

MMIIISD-HB-63-1101 Rev 9

Assistance or questions regarding this process, please contact the OPR/SMEs on the signature line of this handbook or the Standardization, Support and Compliance (S2C) team at s2c@baesystems.com

Date Revision Summary of Changes 07 Nov 2018 Initial Initial Release 26 Nov 2019 1 Revised authority for Class I/Class II determination 13 Jan 2020 2 Added process flows 30 Nov 2020 3 Updated organizational references, format and administrative changes 01 Dec 2020 4 Added Section on using Technical Orders to document repairs 12 Jan 2021 5 Update TERB Project folder link; reference to branch handbooks 13 Sep 2021 6 Added Expedited TERB Reviews process 18 July 2022 7 Updated flow path diagrams minor formatting updates 08 May 2023 8 Adjusted responsibility of the TERB Coordinator and updated the format 25 Oct 2023 9 Updated using the TERB Planning and Planning Document

Tracker Worksheets; other admin updates

CERTIFIED BY:

______________________________________________ Date: _______________________

Jessy Jones, AFNWC/NM MM III Chief Engineer (acting)

Warren Nuibe, AFNWC/NME Integration Division Chief

Aimee Tarbet, AFNWC/NM Product Support Manager(acting)

Prepared By Gordon Heaps of the BAE S2C Team, 14 Nov 2023 mailto:s2c@baesystems.com

Introduction

The intent of this handbook is to provide guidance on the process to initiate a technical baseline change to the MMIII Weapon System (WS). Under the MMIII WS construct, there are two types of technical baseline changes: Class I and Class II. For definitions of each, please see Minuteman III Plan 62-CMP, Minuteman III Configuration management plan. Class I change will require review and approval by the Technical Evaluation Review Board (TERB) chaired by the MMIII Chief Engineer. TERB review includes all affected MMIII subsystem Integrated Product Team (IPT)s, applicable external stakeholders, System Integrity Verification (SIV) specialty engineering areas, Configuration Management, Test and Evaluation and others as needed. Class II change does not require TERB approval and is delegated responsibility to the Division subsystem levels. Class II projects are required to go through the respective Subsystem IPT review board process. In addition, this handbook clarifies how to document changes to a physical configuration when a repair is necessary and the post-repair configuration differs from the original.

The majority of MMIII programs follow the Major Capability Acquisition framework defined by Department of Defense Directive 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System and Department of Defense Instruction 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, however other Adaptive Acquisition Framework paths are also possible. Figure 1 represents the Systems Engineering framework used to order and guide TERB and other MMIII system engineering reviews. Milestones in the framework are based on the DoD Systems Engineering Guidebook and IEEE 15288.2 as best practice.

Figure 1. Systems Engineering Framework.

The following are entrance and exit criteria for initiating a change to the MMIII WS technical baseline:

Entrance Criteria:

• Identify need for a technical baseline change

• Identify associated weapons system risk/issues or program risk/issues

• For presentation at TERB to the Chief Engineer, must go through the respective subsystem review board first

• For TERB 0 presentations, completion of the TERB Planning Spreadsheet (which requires pre-coordination meetings with affected specialty engineering and subsystem teams) and the Project Deliverable Template.

Exit Expectation:

• Determine whether to use a Technical Order (TO) to document a repair to meet Key Performance Parameter per the MMIII Life Cycle Sustainment Plan

• Approved technical approach and tailored systems engineering process

• Coordination through affected subsystem IPT, Configuration Management, Test and Evaluation and SIV specialty engineering areas

• Baseline change approval from the delegated Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E) authority, IAW Minuteman III Handbook 63-1104, Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E) Approval Level Determination.

Program managers and engineers are expected to work as an integrated team to identify and appropriately handle technical baseline changes to the MMIII WS. The processes defined in this handbook are organized into the following sections to assist the user in identifying what type of technical baseline change is appropriate and how to execute each:

• TOs for Document Repairs

• Class I/Class II Determination

• Class I Process

• Class II Process

Chapter 1

PROCESS FOR MINUTEMAN III TECHNICAL BASELINE CHANGES

1.1. Technical Orders for Documenting Repairs.

1.1.1. If a repair is required for a given physical component and that repair action will change the physical appearance of the “original, pristine” part as documented in the drawing baseline, using a TO in order to document the change in configuration is preferred if:

1.1.1.1. The original drawing baseline and not the ‘repaired’ configuration would be used to buy the item in the future; and,

1.1.1.2. The repaired configuration is interchangeable per American Society of Mechanical Engineers Standard ASME Y14.100, Preliminary Design Review. An item is interchangeable when it one possesses comparable functional and physical characteristics as to be equivalent in performance, reliability and maintainability to another item of similar or identical purposes and two is capable of being exchanged for the other item without selection for fit or performance, alteration of the items themselves, or adjoining items, except for adjustments. The common sense interpretation is that minor repairs will still allow a repaired part or system to function as originally designed without impact to other components/systems and/or interfaces.

1.1.2. A repair documented in the TO is expected to go through OSS&E review by the cognizant engineering authority for that particular subsystem as defined in the TO update process IAW Air Force Technical Order 00-5-3, Air Force Technical Order Life Cycle Management and the Minuteman III Handbook 63-1104, Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness Approval Level Determination.

Figure 1.1. Class I/Class II Determination.

1.1.3. The project engineer associated with the effort identifies the appropriate OSS&E delegation authority IAW ICBMSD-HB-63-1104, see Figure 1.1.

1.1.4. The project engineer evaluates the complexity of the effort and, using the guidance found in MMIIISD 62-CMP, Appendix A, makes a recommendation of whether it should be a Class I or Class II effort.

1.1.4.1. The project engineer will consult with their respective Division Lead Engineer, who has authorized delegated engineering authority, for a final determination.

1.1.4.2. If there are differences of opinion from the Configuration Management team, then involve the Chief Engineer for adjudication.

1.1.4.3. If Class I, use the Class I TERB process to accomplish the change.

1.1.5. If it is determined that the change is a Class II change, use the Engineering Order process to complete the changes. See AFNWC/NM-HB-63-1124, Engineering Order for further information on the Engineering Order process.

1.2. Class I TERB Process.

1.2.1. The Branch/Integrated Product Team (IPT) Lead Engineers are Subject Matter Experts in this process, so you may contact them for questions or support. Use the steps identified in Figure 1.2 to complete the Class I change process. For questions regarding slide decks or other required documents for Class I changes, please contact the TERB Coordinators at: afnwc.nies.terb@us.af.mil.

1.3. Required Technical Evaluation Review Boards Associated with Technical Design Review.

1.3.1. TERB is required for TERB 0, Preliminary Design Review (if there is a change to Part 1 or One-Part Specification), Critical Design Review (if there is a change to the Part II Specification), pre-Functional Configuration Audit (FCA)/Physical Configuration Audit (PCA) and Configuration Control Board (CCB). All requiring MMIII Chief Engineer coordination.

1.3.2. The other gates are up for consideration based on the scope of the effort.

1.4. Technical Evaluation Review Board Documentation

1.4.1. The engineer pulls the latest TERB template from the N: Drive (N:\6. MMIII\15.

Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Briefing Template\Templates).

1.4.1.1. Be sure to read all instructions including redlines on the TERB slide template, as they provide additional information and guidance on completing each slide.

1.4.1.2. Information provided should be as thorough and detailed as necessary to convey the correct message.

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/21300/governance/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Engineering%20Support.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F21300%2Fgovernance%2FShared%20Documents%2F62%2DCMP%20ICBM%20Configuration%20Management%20Plan%20%28CMP%29%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F21300%2Fgovernance%2FShared%20Documents https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/21300/governance/Shared%20Documents/Forms/Engineering%20Support.aspx?id=%2Fsites%2F21300%2Fgovernance%2FShared%20Documents%2F62%2DCMP%20ICBM%20Configuration%20Management%20Plan%20%28CMP%29%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2F21300%2Fgovernance%2FShared%20Documents https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/21300/EN/Command_Media/Home.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2F21300%2FEN%2FCommand%20Media%2FMMIII%20Handbooks&FolderCTID=0x01200082C8DEF5E35C3046939FB2A098ABDDAD&View=%7BC90F7DCE%2D5CDE%2D47F2%2D8FAA%2DA61EC986064E%7D mailto:afnwc.nies.terb@us.af.mil

Figure 1.2. Technical Baseline Change Process Flow.

1.5. Actions Prior to Technical Evaluation Review Board.

1.5.1. Technical Planning Spreadsheet (TPS).

1.5.1.1. Each team is expected to fill out the TPS as it applies to their program. Each project team is expected to meet with affected subsystems and specialty engineering areas to fill out the checklist and evaluate the level of effort required to meet the requirements of that area throughout the execution effort.

1.5.1.2. There are tailored TPS templates for hardware and software projects.

1.5.1.3. The TPS template is in the following folder: N:\6. MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Briefing Template\Templates.

1.5.2. Project Deliverable Tracker (PDT).

1.5.2.1. Embedded in the PDT is an integration analysis worksheet. The project team gives their best effort on which subsystems and specialty engineering areas are affected by the proposed effort.

1.5.2.2. Each area will provide the name of a specific individual who will represent that specific subsystem/specialty engineering area to the project team. Place that name in the respective cell of the integration analysis worksheet.

1.5.2.3. The project teams fill out the remaining tabs of the PDT to capture which documentation is pertinent to the effort and when the project team is expected to deliver the draft and final products.

1.5.2.4. The PDT template is in the following folder: N:\6. MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Briefing Template\Templates.

1.5.3. The Program Manager of the effort is the responsible authority for managing the TPS, PDT, and associated product deliverables. The Project Engineer will support the pre-coordination meetings from a technical/OSS&E perspective.

1.5.4. The engineer coordinates with identified Decision Authority (DA) to execute IPT Division reviews. Please reference the handbook that outlines the process specific for each respective Division-level review or contact the Division Lead Engineer for that respective subsystem.

1.5.5. The engineer arranges a time on the TERB schedule by contacting the TERB Coordinators at: afnwc.nies.terb@us.af.mil

1.5.6. The engineer sends the TERB Review Package to the TERB Coordinators prior to the scheduled TERB review. Review intervals are as follows: Formal Review—eleven (11) working days prior. Reviewer’s responses are due back to the initiator five (5) working days prior to the scheduled TERB to resolve any issues identified. For large packages, allow additional time for SIV and TERB reviews.

1.5.6.1. TERB Coordinators will populate a folder on the JIRA SharePoint with subfolders for each milestone.

1.5.6.2. The TERB Coordinators create JIRA task information.

1.5.6.3. A representative from each Subsystem IPT and Specialty Engineering area is required to review whether the effort in question (and associated requirements) affects their particular area Note: A full review is not required for pre-FCA/PCA or CCB by those areas not previously involved in the effort.

1.5.6.4. Subsystems/Specialty Engineering Point of Contact (POC)s are expected to complete their review five (5) working days prior to the scheduled TERB briefing to the Chief Engineer.

1.5.6.5. The Integration Support Contractor (ISC) Chief Engineer then has until two (2) days before the TERB briefing to evaluate if there is any weapon system functional impact risk as a result of the change. In addition, The ISC Chief Engineer is expected to try and adjudicate any ‘non concur’ comments between two parties. The ISC Chief Engineer will then provide the results of those two areas to the Chief Engineer two working days prior to the TERB briefing.

1.5.7. The MMIII Chief Engineer reviews all comments from the Subsystem/Specialty Engineering reviews, in addition to the ISC Chief Engineer comments. If there are no unresolved non-concurs and no concerns with the risk of the effort, the ISC Chief Engineer will approve the TERB electronically.

1.5.8. The Division Lead Engineers may request that the effort come to an in-person TERB regardless for extenuating circumstances (i.e., new engineer briefing experience).

1.5.9. For clarification, for technical baseline changes, the 414th Supply Chain Management Squadron will operate essentially as another working group under the IPT structure.

1.6. In-Person Technical Evaluation Review Board Presentation

1.6.1. The project engineer, or qualified delegate, briefs the TERB slides.

1.6.1.1. The Program Manager for the effort attends the TERB briefing.

1.6.1.2. A representative from each subsystem IPT and SIV specialty engineering area attends an in-person TERB only if they are identified as affected by the effort, per the integration analysis spreadsheet. If they are affected, it is mandatory that a representative from the subsystem/specialty engineering area be in attendance.

1.6.2. The TERB Coordinator updates sub folders in the JIRA SharePoint folders and on the N: drive to include the approved systems engineering milestone reviews.

1.7. Execute Effort / Milestone Reviews

1.7.1. The engineer holds systems engineering milestone reviews at the DA level per the plan outlined in the TERB brief.

1.7.2. All affected Subsystem IPT and Specialty Engineering area POCs identified within the TERB Integration Analysis are expected to either attend the review in person or send a qualified representative.

1.7.3. The DA solicits a concur/non-concur at the end of the review from each affected

POC.

1.7.4. Each POC signs a coordination sheet (N:\6. MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Briefing Template\Templates). If there is non-concurrence, rationale must be documented.

The project team can document coordination through wet signatures or electronic signatures.

The preference is via in-person attendance at the end of the milestone review.

1.7.5. The DA is authorized to proceed through the gate after annotating non-attendance on the coordination sheet and notification to the MMIII Chief Engineer.

1.7.6. If there is disagreement between the DA and one of the Subsystems/Specialty Engineering areas, the DA has the delegated authority to hear all opinions and then, together with the project Program Manager, make a decision on a way forward. Any team has the opportunity and responsibility to elevate concerns to the Chief Engineer for adjudication.

1.7.7. The CCB reviews the milestones and provides configuration change recommendations or concurrence.

1.7.8. The DA notifies the MMIII Chief Engineer of milestone completion and submits the milestone coordination sheet and milestone briefing material to the TERB Coordinators at:

afnwc.nies.terb@us.af.mil

1.7.9. The TERB Coordinators will upload the documents to the applicable milestone folder on the N: Drive: (N:\6. MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Projects) and JIRA.

1.7.10. The project will deliver Contract Data Requirements List documentation through the CDRLVue system, if applicable.

1.7.11. TERB Coordinators will use the Milestone Tracking Spreadsheet to log completion of technical baseline change milestones. This file is in the following folder location: N:\6.

MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Admin.

1.7.12. TERB Coordinators will send out a quarterly status update for the TERB Milestone Tracking spreadsheet to the MMIII Chief Engineer and Division Lead Engineers.

1.7.13. The TERB Coordinator will annotate for all completed milestones whether the coordination sheet and the milestone briefing material has been uploaded to the project folder for each respective milestone.

1.7.14. TERB Coordinators will send out a quarterly open BAR tracking spreadsheet and solicit updates on status and Estimated Completion Dates (ECD) from the Division Lead

Engineers; upon update the TERB Coordinator will send the overall status with close out plans/ECDs to the MMIII Chief Engineer and IPT/Division Lead Engineers.

1.8. Potential issues during execution.

1.8.1. If there is a change in the technical approach or a change to a requirement during execution of the effort, the engineer pulls the latest TERB template located on the N: Drive:

(N:\6. MMIII\15. Integration\15.10 TERB\TERB Briefing Template\Templates) and presents the requirement changes for review and coordination at TERB.

1.8.1.1. The engineer updates the integration analysis spreadsheet in the PDT to determine if other subsystem IPTs and SIV specialty engineering areas are affected.

1.8.1.2. The project engineer clearly identifies on the title page of the template that this is an update to a previously approved technical baseline.

1.8.1.3. All Subsystem/Specialty Engineering POCs are expected to review the updated package and determine if they are affected due to the updated requirements.

1.9. Actions Following TERB.

1.9.1. A Board Approval Request (BAR) will be created by the TERB coordinator at the close of each TERB review.

1.9.1.1. BARs will capture any action items that the program will need to complete in order to receive approval to move forward.

1.9.1.2. The Chief Engineer has approval authority of BARs.

1.9.1.3. The milestone will remain open until all action items are resolved and the BAR is signed by the Chief Engineer.

1.9.1.4. If a non-concur occurred during JIRA coordination, and the project engineer replied to the non-concur, but the non-concurring POC did not acknowledge and change their response, the TERB Coordinator will cc the POC when they send it to the Chief Engineer for signature. A non-response from the POC is assumed that they were good with the response.

1.10. Expedited TERB Reviews.

1.10.1. The general expectation is that teams will plan with sufficient lead-time to allow for scheduling on the TERB calendar and review of TERB slides.

1.10.2. However, if there is an emergency or urgent requirement that does not allow for normal scheduling and/or review, the team should coordinate through their respective IPT Lead Engineer and then contact the Chief Engineer for possible consideration outside of the normal process outlined previously.

1.10.3. If the Chief Engineer approves an expedited review, the project team is responsible for coordinating either an in-person or Teams meeting with all the affected subsystems/specialty engineering areas.

1.11. Close Out Effort.

1.11.1. Closing out a Class I change effort requires going to the TERB/CCB.

1.11.1.1. The engineer coordinates with identified DA to execute reviews at the Division level. The engineer updates the effort’s existing TERB slide deck.

1.11.1.2. All completed slides from the TERB template will be required for the CCB; this is required to verify that all appropriate systems engineering milestone reviews have been performed and exit criteria as approved.

1.11.2. The engineer arranges a time on the TERB schedule by contacting the TERB Coordinators at: afnwc.nies.terb@us.af.mil

1.11.3. The engineer sends the TERB Review Package to the TERB Coordinators eleven

(11) working days prior to the scheduled TERB review. Reviewer’s responses are due back to the engineer five (5) working days prior to the scheduled TERB to resolve any issues identified. The engineer briefs the TERB/CCB.

1.11.4. POCs from the subsystem and specialty engineering teams identified as affected in the integration analysis spreadsheet will attend the CCB.

Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References

DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, 09 September 2020

DoDI 5000.02, Operation of The Adaptive Acquisition Framework, 23 Jan 2020

DoDI 5000.88, Engineering of Defense Systems, 18 Nov 2020

DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151, Major Capability Acquisition, 19 Aug 2022

ICBMSD-HB-63-1104, Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E) Approval Level Determination, 12 Nov 2019

AFNWC/NM-HB-63-1124, Engineering Order, 27 May 2021

MMIIISD 62-CMP, Minuteman III ICBM Configuration Management Plan, 2 Feb 2023

TO 00-5-3, Air Force Technical Order Life Cycle Management, 1 Aug 2022

AMSE Y14.100, Preliminary Design Review, 2017

Prescribed Forms

TERB Template Note: Provided by the TERB Coordinator.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BAR—Board Approval Request

CCB—Configuration Control Board

CDRL—Contract Data Requirements List

DA—Decision Authority

DoDI—Department of Defense Instruction

ECD—Estimated Completion Date

FCA—Functional Configuration Audit

IPT—Integrated Product Team

MMIII—Minuteman III

MMIIISD—Minuteman III Systems Directorate

OSS&E—Operational Safety, Suitability and Effectiveness

PCA—Physical Configuration Audit

PDT—Project Deliverable Tracker

POC—Point of Contact

SIV—System Integrity Verification

TERB—Technical Evaluation Review Board

TO—Technical Order

TPS—Technical Planning Spreadsheet

WS—Weapons System

Office Symbol Definitions

AFNWC – Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center

AFNWC/NM – Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center/Minuteman III Systems Directorate

Terms

None

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION