Attachment 8 - ALMDS Risk Mgmt Template.docx
DOCX document 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Airborne Laser Mine Detection System
- Solicitation number
- N00024-13-R-6318
About this file
Attachment 8 - Risk Mgmt Template
View the file
Other files
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Attachment 8 Risk Data Spreadsheet Template
PMS495 ALMDS Risk Submission and Change Form
SECTION ONE, IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
| 1. Name of Requestor: |
| 2. Date of Request: |
| 3. POC for Risk: |
| 4. Risk ID (if applicable): |
SECTION TWO, RISK AND EVENT
5. State the Future Root Cause to be tied to the Risk. A future root cause is the most basic reason for the presence of a risk. It must be an event in the future, which, if eliminated or corrected, would prevent a potential consequence from occurring.
| 6. Realization Date: |
| 7. Realization Event: |
8. State the Consequence (or effect) of the future occurrence stated in item 5.
9. Is the consequence a Schedule, Cost, or Technical consequence?
SECTION THREE, SCORING
10. Use the following guidelines to provide a LIKELIHOOD level, assessed at the present time that the Root Cause stated above (item 5) will occur.
| Level |
| Likelihood |
| Probability of Occurrence |
| 1 |
| Not Likely |
| <10% |
| 2 |
| Low Likelihood |
| 10-30% |
| 3 |
| Likely |
| >30-70% |
| 4 |
| Highly Likely |
| >70-90% |
| 5 |
| Near Certainty |
| >90% |
Level:
11. State rationale for level selection:
SECTION THREE, SCORING (CONTINUED)
12. Use the following guidelines to provide an appropriate Score and Rationale for the Cost, Schedule, and Technical Consequences.
| Rating/Description |
| Cost |
| Schedule |
| Technical |
| 5 (Critical) Safety: Jeopardizes an exit criterion of current acquisition phase. |
| Contract cost grows by 10%; LCS MM delivery commitment jeopardized; Development or production costs exceeded by 25% |
| LCS MM delivery commitment not met; Key program milestone would be late by more than 2 weeks; Development schedule goals exceeded by 25% |
| Performance degraded by greater than 8%; No viable alternatives exist; Successful LCS MM delivery commitment success jeopardized. |
| 4 (Significant): Potentially fails Key Performance Parameter (KPP) or Operational Assessment (OA) |
| Contract cost grows by 5-10%; LCS MM delivery commitment in doubt; Development or production cost goals exceeded by 15-25%; Program management reserves (schedule, cost) must be used to implement workarounds. |
| Critical path activities one month late; Workarounds would not meet program milestones; LCS MM Delivery Commitment success in doubt; Development schedule goals exceeded by 15-25% |
| Performance degraded by greater than 8%; Significant changes required; Possible alternatives may exist; Successful LCS MM delivery commitment success in doubt. |
| 3 (Moderate): Shorts a critical mission need but expect no breech |
| Contract cost grows by 1-5%; Limited impact on LCS MM delivery commitment; Development or production cost goals exceeded by 5-15%; Program management reserves (schedule, cost) do not need to be used to implement workarounds. |
| Non critical path activities one month late; Workarounds would avoid impact on critical path; Limited impact LCS MM delivery commitment; Development schedule goals exceeded by 5-15%. |
| Performance below goal; Moderate changes required; Alternatives would provide acceptable system performance; Limited impact on successful LCS MM delivery commitment. |
2 (Minor):
Shorts a significant mission need
| Contract cost grows by 1%; Minor impact on LCS MM delivery commitment; Development or production cost goals exceeded by 1-5%; Program management reserves (schedule, cost) do not need to be used to implement workarounds. |
| Non-critical path activities late; Workarounds would avoid impact on key and non-key program milestones; Minor impact on LCS MM delivery commitment; Development schedule goals exceeded by 1-5%. |
| Performance below goal but within acceptable limits; No changes required; Acceptable alternative exist; Minor impact on Limited impact on successful LCS MM delivery commitment. |
| 1 (Minimal): Remedy will cause disruption to the program |
| Contract cost not dependent on the issue; No impact on LCS MM delivery commitment; Development or production cost goals not exceeded or not dependent on the issue. |
| Schedule not dependent on the issue; No impact on LCS MM delivery commitment; Development schedule goals not exceeded or not dependent on the issue. |
| Performance goals met; No impact on program success. |
| Cost: |
| Rationale: |
| Schedule: |
| Rationale: |
| Technical: |
| Rationale: |
SECTION FOUR, MITIGATION
13. Supply any mitigation steps and tentative completion dates.
| Mitigation |
| Date |
N00024-13-R-6318
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .