Attachment 13 - MIDS JTRS Configuration Management Plan.pdf

PLAN-J-00001 Rev E ii

REVISION RECORD

Rev Date Description Pages

Affected Approved by

CM PM

A 15-Oct-2006 Initial Release N/A DWM DPP B 16-Feb-2007 Final N/A DWM DPP C 15-Jun-2007 Program Signature Final N/A DWM DPP D 26-May-2010 1. Updated to reflect current Limited

Production and SE&I Contracts.

2. Introduced the Integrated Build concept.

3. Updated to add new JPEO eCM Plan reqts.

All DWM SDK

E 16-Jan-2014 Program Signature Final All MWP AJW

NOTE: Beneficial comments (recommendations, changes, additions, deletions) and any pertinent data, which may be of use in improving this document, shall be forwarded to the MIDS Program Office (MPO) Program Manager.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PARAGRAPH PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Configuration and Data Management Plan (CDMP)

1.2 Background

1.3 Scope

1.3.1 MIDS JTRS Core Terminal Configuration

1.3.2 MIDS JTRS CMN-4 Terminal Configuration

1.3.3 MIDS JTRS TTNT Terminal Configuration

1.4 Organization

1.4.1 MIDS Program Office (MPO)

1.4.2 MPO CM Relationship with Stakeholders and other Government Offices

1.4.2.1 JTNC

1.4.2.2 NSA

1.4.2.3 CECOM

1.4.3 Production and System Engineering & Integration (SE&I) Industry Contractors7

1.5 Definitions

1.6 Acronyms

1.7 Related Documents and References

2 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

2.1 Configuration Identification

2.1.1 Nomenclature

2.1.2 Part Numbers

2.1.3 Serial Numbers

2.2 Configuration Baselines

2.2.1 Functional Baseline

2.2.2 Allocated Baseline

2.2.3 Product Baseline

2.3 Configuration Control

2.3.1 Board Organizations, Working Groups, and Memberships

2.3.1.1 MIDS JTRS Problem Review Board (PRB)

2.3.1.2 MIDS JTRS Problem Report Review (PRR)

2.3.1.3 MIDS JTRS Interface Control Working Group (ICWG)

2.3.1.4 MIDS JTRS Technical Working Group (TWG)

2.3.1.5 MIDS JTRS Configuration Control Review Board (CCRB)

2.3.1.6 MIDS JTRS Configuration Control Board (CCB)

2.3.1.6.1 Conditional Acceptance Process

2.3.2 Baseline Configuration Control

2.3.2.1 FBL, ABL, and PBL under Government Control

2.3.2.2 FBL, ABL and PBL future development process

2.3.3 Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS)

2.3.4 Configuration Control of Product Baseline

iv

2.3.5 Investigation Request

2.3.6 Engineering Change Proposal

2.3.6.1 Classification of ECPs

2.3.6.2 ECP Initiation

2.3.6.3 Class I ECP Content

2.3.6.4 Telecommunications Security (COMSEC) and EMC Features

2.3.6.5 Regression Verification and Re-qualification

2.3.6.6 Priority (Fast Track) Engineering Changes

2.3.6.7 Disposition of ECPs

2.3.6.8 Software Block Cycle Changes

2.3.7 Hardware Change Control

2.3.7.1 Block Upgrades

2.3.8 Request for Deviation

2.3.9 MIDS-LVT and MIDS JTRS ECP Interoperability and Suitability

2.4 Configuration Status Accounting (CSA)

2.5 Configuration Audit

2.6 Approvable and Non-Approvable CDRLs

3 DATA MANAGEMENT

3.1 General

3.2 Data Format

3.3 Data Markings

3.4 Data Distribution

3.5 Library

3.6 Data Item Review Procedures

4 FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. PAGE

FIGURE 1. MIDS Program Office Organizational Chart FIGURE 2. Relationship of Activities within the Change Process FIGURE 3. NSA Approval Flow

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. PAGE

Table 1. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE Table 2. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE Table 3. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE Table 4. MIDSvue Modules v

APPENDICES

A1 Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) Review Process ...................................................... A-1 A2 Priority Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) Review Process (Fast Track) .................. A-19 A3 Request For Deviation (RFD) Review Process ............................................................... A-21 A4 Investigation Request (IR) Review Process ..................................................................... A-25 B Configuration and Data Management (CM/DM) Responsibilities .....................................B-1 C Data Item Review Procedures .............................................................................................C-1 D Problem Report Process ..................................................................................................... D-1 E Block Cycle Process ........................................................................................................... E-1 F Block Upgrade Process ....................................................................................................... F-1 G MIDS JTRS Configuration Variants .................................................................................. G-1 H Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................. H-1 I Acronyms ............................................................................................................................. I-1 J Forms ................................................................................................................................... J-1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of the Configuration and Data Management Plan (CDMP)

This Configuration and Data Management Plan (CDMP) defines the requirements for Configuration Management (CM) and Data Management (DM) for the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) core configuration, MIDS JTRS Four-Net Concurrent Multi-Netting with Concurrent Contention Receive (CMN-4), MIDS JTRS Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT), and all future MIDS JTRS variants and integrated waveforms. It places emphasis on the CM and DM policies, procedures, and processes for the full life cycle of all MIDS JTRS variants. This plan supersedes the previous version, dated 26 May 2010, which is hereby cancelled. This plan was developed using the guidance of MIL-HDBK-61A, Military Handbook Configuration Management, and NAVAIRINST 4130.1D, Naval Air Systems Command Configuration Management Process.

1.2 Background

MIDS provides an affordable, wireless, jam-resistant and secure information system for Link-16 data, secure voice, TACAN, and next generation networking waveforms to Airborne, Ground, and Maritime Military Platforms. The MIDS program includes the MIDS-Low Volume Terminal (MIDS-LVT) and MIDS JTRS. MIDS JTRS is a Pre-Planned Product Improvement (P3I) upgrade to MIDS-LVT and adds three additional channels for future waveforms as required by the Warfighters. The inherent MIDS JTRS Core Terminal growth capability readily supports the requirements to field From the Air Advanced Tactical Data Link (FTA ATDL) and other future capabilities. A planned Link 16 enhancement to the Core Terminal is the addition of CMN-4. CMN-4 is the ability of a Link 16 Terminal to receive up to four Link 16 messages, each in a different Link 16 net, within the same Link 16 time slot. Another planned enhancement to MIDS JTRS is the addition of TTNT. TTNT is a high-bandwidth, low-latency, IP-capable waveform to support various platform and net-centric applications. MIDS JTRS TTNT will allow platforms to exchange high-speed high-capacity low-latency messages.

1.3 Scope

The MIDS JTRS systems, hardware and software configuration item baselines covered by this plan are listed below. The MIDS JTRS production variants current as of the date of this CDMP are included in Appendix G. In the event that new configurations are developed after release of this CDMP, they will be added to the next planned revision.

1.3.1 MIDS JTRS Core Terminal Configuration

Table 1. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE

CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE

MPO Controlled Production Baselines

(as marked)

FBL ABL PBL

SYSTEM VARIANTS

RADIO TERMINAL SET (RTS) AN/USQ-190(V) 1(C) X X X

RADIO TERMINAL SET (RTS) AN/USQ-190(V) 2(C) X X X

RADIO TERMINAL SET (RTS) AN/USQ-190(V) 3(C) X X X

RADIO TERMINAL SET (RTS) AN/USQ-190(V) 4(C) X X X

LINE REPLACEABLE UNITS (LRUs)

RECEIVER-TRANSMITTER, RADIO (R-T) RT-1925(C)/U X X X

RECEIVER-TRANSMITTER, RADIO (R-T) RT-1955(C)/U X X X

RECEIVER-TRANSMITTER, RADIO (R-T) RT-1956(C)/U X X X

RECEIVER-TRANSMITTER, RADIO (R-T) RT-1957(C)/U X X X

POWER SUPPLY PP-8559/U X X

SHOP REPLACEABLE UNITS (SRUs)

CHASSIS X X X

RED I/O X X X

TACTICAL AIR NAVIGATION / BLACK CORE PROCESSOR

(TACAN/BCP) X X X

CRYPTOGRAPHIC SUBSYSTEM / PROTECTED CORE PROCESSOR

(CSS/PCP) X X X

2 – 2000 MHZ TRANSCEIVER (2-2 XCVR) X X X

2 – 2000 MHZ TRANSCEIVER BLANK-OFF PLATE X X X

INTERNAL POWER SUPPLY (IPS) X X X

RADIO FREQUENCY AMPLIFIER (RFA) X X X

LINK 16 TRANSCEIVER (L16 XCVR) X X X

SOFTWARE CSCIs

LINK 16 WAVEFORM X X X

TACAN X X X

COMMON OPERATING ENVIRONMENT (COE) X X X

RADIO SERVICES (RS) X X X

RADIO SECURITY SERVICES (RSS) X X X

RADIO DEVICES (RD) X X X

MODEM HARDWARE ABSTRACTION LAYER (MHAL) X X X

CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE

MPO Controlled Production Baselines

(as marked)

FBL ABL PBL

CRYPTOGRAPHIC SUBSYSTEM (CSS) X X X

ANCILLARY ITEMS

EXTERNAL BATTERY PACK FOR THE CSS/PCP X X

1.3.2 MIDS JTRS CMN-4 Terminal Configuration

Specific data and documentation required for the development phase are referenced in section

2.3.2.2 (Table 2)

Table 2. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE

Production Baselines

(as marked)

FBL ABL PBL

SYSTEM VARIANTS - TBD TBD TBD TBD

LINE REPLACEABLE UNITS (LRUs) - TBD TBD TBD TBD

SHOP REPLACEABLE UNITS (SRUs) - TBD TBD TBD TBD

SOFTWARE CSCIs - TBD TBD TBD TBD

ANCILLARY ITEMS - TBD TBD TBD TBD

1.3.3 MIDS JTRS TTNT Terminal Configuration

Specific data and documentation required for the development phase are referenced in section

2.3.2.2 (Table 3)

Table 3. CONFIGURATION ITEM NOMENCLATURE / TITLE

Production Baselines

(as marked)

FBL ABL PBL

SYSTEM VARIANTS - TBD TBD TBD TBD

LINE REPLACEABLE UNITS (LRUs) - TBD TBD TBD TBD

SHOP REPLACEABLE UNITS (SRUs) - TBD TBD TBD TBD

SOFTWARE CSCIs - TBD TBD TBD TBD

ANCILLARY ITEMS - TBD TBD TBD TBD

1.4 Organization

FIGURE 1. MIDS Program Office Organizational Chart

1.4.1 MIDS Program Office (MPO)

The MPO is responsible for the overall configuration control and data management of the MIDS JTRS core, MIDS JTRS CMN-4, MIDS JTRS TTNT, and future variant Terminals.

Additionally, the MPO is the acquisition lead for the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) FTA ATDL. This CDMP’s guidance provides the means by which the MPO and NIFC-CA FTA ATDL Stakeholders will collaborate in MIDS Terminal CM. Competency-aligned personnel from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWARSYSCOM) provide MPO CM expertise. Additional details regarding the MPO CM/DM division may be found in Appendix B and examples of all of the commonly used forms may be found in Appendix J. The MIDS Program Manager reports to Program Executive Office Tactical Air Programs (PEO(T)). PEO(T) provides CM guidance and instructions for the individual PEO(T) Directorates and Programs, including NIFC-CA FTA ATDL.

MPO CM Responsibilities include:

• Controlling and updating the Functional, Allocated, and Product Baselines (FBL, ABL, and PBL) to the extent indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 3 (Core, CMN-4, and TTNT, respectively);

• Managing the change process;

• Approving the contractor’s Joint Configuration Management Plan (CMP); and

• Coordinating all interoperability issues with MIDS JTRS Platforms and Stakeholders and the NATO Tactical Data Link Capabilities Team (TDL CaT).

1.4.2 MPO CM Relationship with Stakeholders and other Government Offices

The MPO currently interfaces with the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force for all platform configuration, integration and usage issues. MIDS JTRS provides the core data link capability in NIFC-CA FTA ATDL and the MPO considers NIFC-CA FTA ATDL to be a key requirements and configuration stakeholder. In regards to the Joint Tactical Networking Center (JTNC), National Security Agency (NSA), and Communications Electronics Command (CECOM), the following sub-sections shall elaborate the CM and DM interface relationships between the offices.

1.4.2.1 JTNC

JTNC is responsible for managing the Information Repository that holds the un-integrated version of all JTRS waveforms.

1.4.2.2 NSA

MIDS JTRS is a National Security System (NSS), all security-related changes require coordination with the NSA for approval.

1.4.2.3 CECOM

The MPO utilizes the Department of Defense Control Point (DODCP) within CECOM at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, for the review and approval of MIDS Requests for Nomenclature submitted via the JETDAS database.

1.4.3 Production and System Engineering & Integration (SE&I) Industry Contractors

The Production and SE&I industry contractors maintain and utilize a common CMP, which is consistent with this CDMP, in accordance with their MIDS JTRS Production and SE&I contracts.

1.5 Definitions

Unique terms used within the CDMP are defined in Appendix H.

1.6 Acronyms

Acronyms used in this CDMP are included in Appendix I.

1.7 Related Documents and References

The documents referenced in this plan are applicable to the extent stated within. The revisions shown are for reference only as they were accurate as of the date of this plan. However, if there is a conflict between the revisions identified here and later revisions, the most recent revision applies.

MIL-HDBK-61A

07 February 2001

Military Handbook: Configuration Management Guidance

MIL-STD-196E

17 February 1998

Depart of Defense Standard Practice Joint Electronics Type Designation System

EIA-649-A

01 April 2004

National Consensus Standard for Configuration Management Government Electronics and Information Technology Association

EIA-836

Latest Revision

Configuration Management Data Exchange and Interoperability

NAVAIR CMP

19 December 2006

Naval Air Systems Command Configuration Management Policy and Processes.

JTRSMIDS-UPA-047-

November 2004

User Partnership Agreement between National Security Agency Information Assurance Directorate and Joint Tactical Radio Systems Joint Program Office and Multifunctional Information Distribution System Airborne Networking Integration International Program Office PMW 780 PEO C4I and Space concerning the Development of the Multifunctional Information Distribution System Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS JTRS) Under the National Security Agency’s User Partnership Program

TSRD No. 04-10 6 December 2004

Telecommunications Security Requirements Document (TSRD) for the Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

2 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT

CM is required to provide a controlled environment during the life cycle of each Configuration Item (CI). A CI may be either a Hardware Configuration Item (HWCI) or a Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI). Firmware is managed as a HWCI even though it is modified through the software development process. The major functions of CM are managing:

• Configuration Identification – The issuance of numbers and other identifiers affixed to the CI;

• Configuration Baselines – The documentation formally approved by the Government that defines the CI functional and physical characteristics;

• Configuration Control – The process of proposing, evaluating, coordinating, approving or disapproving, and implementing changes to a CI;

• Configuration Status Accounting – Recording and reporting changes to a CI;

• Configuration Audits – Verifying and documenting that CIs and related documentation are accurate, complete, and meet program needs.

2.1 Configuration Identification

CIs are defined during the preliminary design where the system requirements, as specified in the FBL, are partitioned and allocated to hardware and software modules that become the system CIs. HWCIs for MIDS JTRS variants are the Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) and Shop Replaceable Units (SRUs). CSCIs for MIDS JTRS variants are Waveform (WF) Applications and Operational Environment (OE) Applications. HWCIs and CSCIs are maintained throughout the life of the program and are updated by the use of Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs).

Refer to 1.3 for a list of MIDS JTRS CIs by Terminal configuration. Future Terminal configurations will have their CIs listed in 1.3 once defined.

All HWCIs and CSCIs shall be uniquely identified in accordance with the MIL-HDBK-61A. At a minimum, the following identifiers shall be marked or labeled on each HWCI:

• Approved nomenclature, if applicable

• Part number with dash number

• Serial number

• Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code

All CSCIs shall be identified by a program name with version number. Computer software instructions or data embedded into a hardware device are defined as “firmware.” Firmware changes shall be developed in accordance with the Industry contractor’s software development process but they are managed as hardware configuration changes to the PBL.

An Integrated Build (IB) is a set of WF and OE applications that is integrated together into a known working Terminal configuration baseline. An IB is not a CI.

2.1.1 Nomenclature

The MPO is responsible for providing nomenclature for each MIDS JTRS Terminal configuration at the Terminal and LRU levels. Using MIL-STD-196E as a guide, requests for nomenclature are initiated and submitted electronically utilizing the online Joint Electronic Type Designation Automated System (JETDAS) nomenclature database where the requests are routed through the Submittal Review Point (SRP) for technical review, then on to the Department Control Point (DCP) for overall review. Each request for nomenclature is then routed to Department of Defense Control Point (DODCP) at Communications Electronics Command for review and approval. Upon approval of a nomenclature and assignment of the type designation, the MPO will coordinate its incorporation into the specifications, drawings and technical manuals.

Nomenclatures are assigned based on Terminal configurations resulting from LRU combinations. Appendix G includes the MIDS JTRS variants with assigned CI nomenclatures approved as of the date of this plan. The CSCIs are shown for reference only and are not part of the nomenclature item.

2.1.2 Part Numbers

Each CI is assigned a unique part number. Similarly, each CSCI is assigned a unique program name and version number. The Part Identification Number (PIN) system ensures traceability to, and visibility into, the FBL and ABL and their revisions and the revisions of the PBL used for Terminal, LRU, and SRU production.

A new part number is required for any change to a CI, firmware included, that results in a form, fit or function difference from an unchanged configuration. A new part number for a CI also consequently changes the part number of the next higher assembly. For example, if a part number changes at the SRU level, a part number change may also occur at the Terminal level.

Changes which still allow Terminals to be interchangeable shall result in a dash number change, for example, -20 may change to -30.

CSCIs that are reprogrammable via an external interface do not necessarily change the part number of the HWCI on which they reside.

Hardware changes that will result in a part number change and software changes that result in a version number change must be documented in a Class I ECP and processed in accordance with this plan.

2.1.3 Serial Numbers

The industry contractors shall assign unique five-digit serial numbers each Terminal and LRU, except for the Terminal chassis, Receiver-Transmitter (RT) LRU, and the (Cryptographic Sub System/Protected Core Processor (CSS/PCP) SRU. The MPO, in coordination with the NSA, will provide the industry contractors the unique serial numbers for the Terminal chassis, RT LRU, and the CSS/PCP SRU. These serial numbers shall be assigned sequentially and consecutively, as the components are delivered, from within blocks of numbers provided by the

NSA.

The original serial number of a HWCI shall not change even if the configuration of the Terminal or RT LRU is changed. In the event that a Terminal or RT LRU is modified to reuse a configuration that had already been implemented, a new serial number shall be assigned to that Terminal and RT LRU. A serial number shall never be reused for any other MIDS JTRS LRU regardless of configuration. The Government requires 90 days advance written notice prior to when production is forecasted to exhaust a block of NSA-assigned serial numbers.

For the purpose of identifying repair or exchange of items, the Government may authorize a modification to an existing serial number through channels of the Communications Security (COMSEC) Material System (CMS) via the cognizant local COMSEC account manager. In these cases, the serial numbers are modified by appending a suffix letter starting with A to the end of the originally assigned number. Example: Chassis serial number 00011 becomes 00011A.

2.2 Configuration Baselines

The configuration baseline is the authorized technical documentation that identifies and defines the item’s functional and physical characteristics. There are three configuration baselines:

Functional, Allocated, and Product.

2.2.1 Functional Baseline

The FBL for each MIDS JTRS Terminal configuration specifies the functional performance, external interfaces, and physical characteristics of that Terminal configuration. For each MIDS JTRS Terminal configuration, the FBL consists of the System Specifications (SSs) and the System/Segment Interface Control Specification (S/SICS).

2.2.2 Allocated Baseline

The ABL specifies the functional performance, internal interfaces, and physical characteristics of each MIDS JTRS LRU and SRU configuration and each CSCI version. The MIDS JTRS ABL consists of the Item Performance Specifications (IPSs), the Interface Control Document (ICD), the Software Requirements Specifications (SRSs), the Interface Requirements Specifications (IRSs), the System and Subsystem Design Document (SSDD), the Target Operating Environment (TOE) and the Software Security Specification (SWS).

2.2.3 Product Baseline

The PBL describes the detailed design of the MIDS JTRS HWCIs and CSCIs utilized during production, fielding, and operational support. The MIDS JTRS PBL consists of the approved product drawings and associated lists, approved Software Product Specifications (SPSs), Software Design Documents (SDDs), Interface Design Documents (IDDs), Software Version Description (SVD) documents, and Application Program Interfaces. The PBL also includes documentation that describes the production acceptance testing and tests necessary to support the CIs. The Terminal PBL is established upon successful completion of Qualification Verification.

2.3 Configuration Control

The purpose of configuration control is to evaluate proposed changes and facilitate authorized changes that provide significant benefit to the MIDS JTRS variants. It assures that affordability, platform requirements, interoperability, and interface issues are considered during the change process.

The following paragraphs identify the working groups and meetings utilized by the MIDS JTRS staff and participants for reviewing and authorizing changes and the extent of their responsibilities. This section also defines the FBL, ABL and PBL configuration control requirements.

2.3.1 Board Organizations, Working Groups, and Memberships

The established MPO hierarchy of activities provides for the review and approval of proposed configuration changes. The following sections outline the activities and membership of the MIDS JTRS Problem Review Board (PRB), MIDS JTRS Problem Report Review (PRR), MIDS JTRS Interface Control Working Group (ICWG), MIDS JTRS Technical Working Group (TWG), JTNC Configuration Control Broad (CCB), the MIDS JTRS Configuration Control Review Board (CCRB) and the MIDS JTRS CCB. Figure 2 graphically presents the relationships between these different activities. All stakeholders, and platform and integrator representatives participate in every level of this process and all substantial comments are documented in the meeting minutes and stored in MIDSvue.

ICWG Industry Technical Concurrence Process

Government Review And Approval ProcessMPOPEO(T)

TWG

CCRB

CCB

Technical Reviews

Contract Modification

Process

SPAWAR

Contracts

Platforms Production/SE&I CTRs

Support Activities FMS (If Applicable)

JTNC (Un-Integrated WF)

FIGURE 2. Relationship of Activities within the Change Process

NOTE: This is a high-level representation only intended to show the relationships between activities. A more detailed representation of the ECP process is in Appendix A1, Figure A1-1.

2.3.1.1 MIDS JTRS Problem Review Board (PRB)

The PRB is the combined Government and industry forum to address and monitor the status and disposition of problems and deficiencies reported against the MIDS JTRS Terminals.

Upon identification of impact and corrective action needed, the JTRS Problem Reports (JPRs) will be referred to the appropriate corrective action channel; the Investigation Request (IR) and ECP process, Block Cycle or Block Upgrade processes, or hardware repair fix. See Appendix D for details of the MIDS JTRS Problem Report process.

PRB membership shall include one member from each MPO functional area. An appointed Logistics representative chairs the meeting. Membership may also include the Production and

SE&I Contractors, MPO representatives and their contractors, and platform and integrator representatives and their contractors.

2.3.1.2 MIDS JTRS Problem Report Review (PRR)

There shall be, as required, Government-chaired MIDS JTRS PRR meetings that address the status of, and review, all active JPRs. PRRs have broad participation, including MPO personnel and their support, development and production contractors, platform and integrator representatives and their contractors, and other Government entities in order to fully address the JPRs’ technical issues. MIDS JTRS PRRs are designed to fully address the technical issues of all active JPRs. An appointed Logistics representative chairs the meeting.

2.3.1.3 MIDS JTRS Interface Control Working Group (ICWG)

The MIDS JTRS ICWG collaborates for the development and review of ECPs and IRs prior to formal submission to the MPO. The ICWG’s primary objective is to ensure that Terminal modifications resulting from the proposed changes to the FBL and ABL specifications are physically, functionally, and electrically compatible among the different LRUs, SRUs, and host platforms.

All Industry contractors shall agree with the Notices of Revision (NORs), which contain the exact technical wording of the proposed baseline specification changes, prior to formal submittal to the MPO. After resolution of all interface and technical issues, and the contents of the accompanying NORs have been agreed upon, all contractors affected by product impacts in implementing the proposed changes shall submit companion ECPs describing the impact to their respective contracts include estimated costs, schedule, and implementation effectivity.

Effected non-initiating contractors shall indicate their concurrence by signing the ECP signature page. The initiator of an ECP (the lead contractor or MPO representative) shall represent the NORs at the MIDS JTRS ICWG. The MPO shall be the arbitrator in the MIDS JTRS ICWG for any issue that cannot be resolved. The MPO Technical Officer in Charge (TOC) coordinates, monitors and guides the contractors through the ECP and NOR development and review.

Platform representatives are encouraged to participate in the MIDS JTRS ICWG process and meetings. Additionally the ICWG shall serve as a forum for the contractors to discuss and agree to any changes to the common product baseline.

MIDS JTRS ICWG face-to-face meetings occur when determined by the MPO. ICWGs shall be chaired by the senior U.S. MPO Engineering representative or designated individuals and co-chaired by the senior U.S. MPO Configuration Management representative or designated individuals.

2.3.1.4 MIDS JTRS Technical Working Group (TWG)

The MPO may forward proposed changes for the FBL and ABL documents that cannot be resolved during the investigation by the TOC or the CCRB to the MIDS JTRS TWG for further discussion. The MIDS JTRS TWG will also discuss software and hardware candidates for implementation into the next software Block Cycles, Engineering Releases, and hardware Block Upgrades together with the associated FBL and ABL modifications. The MIDS JTRS TWG is the forum for resolving interface and technical problems and for providing the communication link between the participating membership representatives from the Production and SE&I contractors and the MPO. The senior U.S. Engineering representative or designated individual chairs the MIDS JTRS TWG.

The MID JTRS TWG meetings occur when determined by the MPO.

2.3.1.5 MIDS JTRS Configuration Control Review Board (CCRB)

The MIDS JTRS CCRB is responsible for the following:

• Performing an evaluation of the change documents (IRs, ECPs, and Request for Deviation

(RFDs)) based on a technical assessment by the assigned TOC

• Reviewing technical content, baseline and configuration impacts, cost, schedule, and logistic aspects, as applicable, for each IR and ECP

• Determining if the IR, ECP or RFD is ready to forward to the CCB

• Forwarding hardware Block Upgrade Plans (BUP) to the CCB

• Forwarding hardware Block Upgrade Changes (BUC) to the CCB

• Forwarding software Block Cycle Changes (BCC) to the CCB

Software Block Cycle Plans (BCPs) are utilized to document the prioritization and implementation of JPR corrective actions and new requirements (ECPs and IRs), to be implemented at the request of and in coordination with the host platforms. The software BCP is sent to the industry contractors for quotation. The result of the final BCP negotiation is the proposed Block Cycle Change, which lists all the associated ECPs and approved IRs, the total cost, and the schedule for the BCC. The CCRB is responsible for recommending the BCC to the CCB for approval.

Hardware Block Upgrade Plans (BUPs) are utilized to document the implementation of hardware changes. The CCRB is responsible for recommending the contents of a BUP, which is the candidate list as requested by the platforms, to CCB for approval. The recommendation has to include Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) costs for the ECPs in the BUP candidate list as received from the production contractors. The BUP is sent to the industry contractors for quotation. The result of the final BUP negotiation is the proposed Block Upgrade Change, which lists all the associated ECPs, the total cost, and the schedule for the BUC. The MIDS JTRS CCRB is responsible for recommending the BUC to the MIDS JTRS CCB for approval.

The voting members of the MIDS JTRS CCRB are U.S. only and are from the MIDS Program Office. Members are the Assistant Program Manager (APM) or the Deputy APM (DAPM) (Chairman), the Senior U.S. Representatives from Program Integration, Configuration and Data Management, Engineering, Logistics, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) (if applicable), and NIFC-CA, (if applicable), or their designated alternates. The designated alternates shall be named to the chairman orally or in writing. A designated alternate can be Government, Military, or contractor. MPO Platform Representatives should attend the CCRB in order to inform the group regarding platform inputs. The Configuration Manager or designated alternate shall serve as the secretariat. The TOCs in charge present the ECPs, IRs, and RFDs to the Board.

Platforms, including NIFC-CA, are represented in this process by the platform representatives that are embedded in the MPO logistics division or other divisions within the MPO. Platforms have full visibility of the proposed changes and may enter comments and concurrence directly via MIDSvue or by proxy granted to their MPO platform representative. Platforms may attend CCRB meetings personally if desired. A Teleconference (TELCON) dial-in shall always be provided. NSA is represented in this process by the MPO Systems Information Assurance Manager (IAM) who is embedded in the MPO Engineering division. NSA has full visibility of the proposed changes and may enter comments and concurrence directly via MIDSvue or by proxy granted to MPO IAM.

2.3.1.6 MIDS JTRS Configuration Control Board (CCB)

The MIDS JTRS CCB is responsible for the following:

• Approving or disapproving of MIDS JTRS IRs, ECPs, and RFDs

• Approving the proposed software BCC and hardware BUC with funding commitment

• Approving the proposed hardware BUP to proceed with formal RFP

• Approving the final software BCC baseline for release to distribution upon successful testing

• Recommending the contractual instrument for use to implement changes

The MIDS JTRS CCB is responsible for reviewing and, if decided, approving the BUC, the BCC and BUP proposed by the MIDS JTRS CCRB. Upon MIDS JTRS CCB approval of the BUP, the block configuration is frozen. Change requests to an approved BUP must be approved by the MIDS JTRS CCB. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) shall authorize implementation of approved ECPs (new requirements) and JPR corrective actions identified in the BCC or the

BUC.

MIDS JTRS CCBs are scheduled and conducted in the MPO as needed.

The MIDS Program Manager (PM), or Deputy Program Manager (DPM) in absence of the PM, chairs the MIDS JTRS CCB. Cognizant personnel (i.e. MPO U.S. representatives, TOC(s), and platform representatives) are invited so that each change proposal is adequately presented for a decision. Voting members at the MIDS JTRS CCB are the Senior MPO U.S. Representatives from Program Integration, Configuration and Data Management, Engineering, Logistics, and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) (if applicable), and NIFC-CA, (if applicable), or their designated alternates. The designated alternates shall be named to the chairman orally or in writing. A designated alternate can be Government, Military, or contractor. MPO Platform Representatives should attend the CCB in order to inform the group regarding platform inputs. The Configuration Manager or designated alternate shall serve as the secretariat. The Configuration Manager is the MPO authorized signature authority for ECPs and RFDs.

Platforms are represented in this process by their platform representatives and may attend personally if desired. A TELCON dial-in shall always be provided.

2.3.1.6.1 Conditional Acceptance Process

The MPO CM team shall monitor all items conditionally approved by the CCB. Once the CM team has confirmed that all required conditions are complete, the CM team will inform the PCO that the item can be fully approved.

2.3.2 Baseline Configuration Control

2.3.2.1 FBL, ABL, and PBL under Government Control

The MPO is the MIDS JTRS Current Document Change Authority (CDCA) and maintains configuration control of the FBL, ABL, and most of the PBL. Modifications to the FBL, ABL, and CI components of the PBL are accomplished via the ECP process.

2.3.2.2 FBL, ABL and PBL future development process

The MPO established the FBL, ABL, and PBL for the MIDS JTRS Core Terminal configuration prior to the implementation of this CDMP. As a result, the MPO and the industry contractors develop the FBL, ABL, and PBL for new Terminal configurations based on modifications to the Core Terminal FBL, ABL, and PBL. The MPO informally reviews and comments upon draft specifications within the Industry contractor specification database (see paragraph 2.3.3). For each new Terminal configuration, the industry contractors prepare and submit ECPs and the associated NORs to the MPO that document the modifications needed to the Core Terminal FBL, ABL, and PBL. Once approved by the CCB, the NORs are the basis for generating the new FBL, ABL, and PBL specifications and interface documents. The CCB FBL approval requires formal delivery of the FBL ECP and NORs with no open issues remaining and all comments adjudicated. With this approval, the MPO can authenticate the FBL specifications and interface control documents for the new Terminal configuration. “Authenticated” means that the specifications and interface control documents are mature enough to be placed under formal configuration control.

Normally, the MPO will authenticate and assume formal configuration control of the FBL at the beginning of the development and design process for the new Terminal configuration. However, in the event of schedule requirements the MPO may allow, at its option, the development of the FBL for the new Terminal configuration to proceed in parallel with the preliminary design of the new Terminal configuration. In this case, the MPO’s objective will be to authenticate and assume formal configuration control of the FBL for the new Terminal configuration as soon as is practical but no later than the start of the Preliminary Design Review (PDR).

In coordination with the MPO, the industry contractors will develop the ABL for the new Terminal configuration as part of their preliminary design efforts. As a PDR requirement, the MPO will authenticate the ABL specifications and interface documents via the CCB process.

The CCB ABL approval requires formal delivery of the ABL ECP and NORs with no open issues and all comments adjudicated. After authentication the industry contractors will assume and maintain formal configuration control of the ABL for the new Terminal configuration in accordance with industry’s Configuration Management Plan until the MPO assumes formal configuration control of the ABL after successful completion of Qualification Verification of the new Terminal configuration. The industry contractors shall deliver the ABL with full specifications and ICDs, not NORs, to the MPO for CCB approval in order to effect the transition of formal configuration control. CCB approval requires that there be no open issues and that all comments adjudicated.

2.3.3 Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS)

DOORS provides traceability to all changes as well as linkage between documentation. Industry contractors shall update the DOORS requirements allocation and traceability. The MPO reserves the right to extract documents from DOORS when deemed necessary. All proposed requirement and linkage changes from the NORs and ECPs shall be documented and reviewed via the DOORS Change Proposal System (CPS). Prior to formal ECP and NOR delivery the MPO may review and approve proposed changes via DOORS CPS. Industry contractors do not have approval authority for any Change Proposals (CPs) related to Government controlled FBL and ABL specifications. Industry contractors do have approval authorization for all FBL and ABL specifications not yet under Government control, but shall still grant the Government review authorization. Once the Government takes control of a baseline specification, the industry contractors no longer have approval authorization of CPs affecting that specification. Once the Government approves each FBL CP or the industry contractors approve each ABL CP, the industry contractors shall generate a new DOORS baseline and annotate that baseline as such within DOORS.

2.3.4 Configuration Control of Product Baseline

The Government maintains configuration control of the PBL with the exception of the few items not marked in tables 1, 2, and 3. The MIDS JTRS CCB process will coordinate authorization for the PBL change with the appropriate security accreditation agencies. For changes that affect the PBL only, the industry contractor shall determine the impact on system qualification requirements and develop a Regression Verification Procedure (RVP) and, if applicable, a regression Security Verification Testing (SVT) procedure and submit both to the MPO, with the proposed ECP, for concurrent review.

The industry contractors perform configuration control of their product in accordance with their Government approved CMP and are responsible for ensuring that the PBL accurately specifies the as-built configurations. Additionally, the industry contractors shall ensure that their respective contract deliverable Configuration Management Accounting Report (CMAR) is reflective of these configurations, part numbers and revisions and versions for procured CIs throughout their lifecycle. Any changes to the common PBL shall be agreed to by all vendors via the ICWG process.

2.3.5 Investigation Request

An IR may be initiated by a Platform or the MPO to evaluate potential changes to requirements and associated impacts. An IR may result in the generation of an ECP when changes in the specifications are necessary. Please see Appendix A4 for details regarding the IR process.

2.3.6 Engineering Change Proposal

An ECP is the management tool used to propose an engineering and configuration change to a CI and the associated documentation. The approval of ECPs are based on the determination that the proposed change is necessary, or that it offers a significant benefit to the program at an acceptable cost for implementation and support. Specifically, decisions are based on the technical validity of the proposed change; the interface effects on other systems and subsystems;

interoperability, the impact on logistics support; effects on established delivery schedules; and availability of funding.

2.3.6.1 Classification of ECPs

All ECP changes affecting the Terminal, LRU, or SRU requirements specified in the FBL and ABL documents are Class I. Industry shall not submit Class II ECPs against the FBL and ABL.

The Industry contractor is responsible for assigning change classification of an ECP at the PBL level. PBL documentation changes are classified as Class I or Class II. A Class I ECP is defined as any proposed change that affects the contractor’s product configuration documentation (i.e., circuit card design or layout changes, part number change to an LRU, SRU or CSCI revision change) and one or more of the following items:

• Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)

• Safety

• Compatibility, interoperability, or logistics support

• Delivered technical manuals for which changes are not funded

• Requires retrofit of delivered units

• Operating limits or performance

• Interchangeability, substitutability, or replace-ability of any item down to non-repairable subassemblies

• Sources on a source control drawing

• Skills, manning, training, biomedical factors, and human engineering design

• Reliability

• Maintenance

• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Features, EMC/Electromagnetic Interference

(EMI) or environmental factors

• Telecommunications Security

• Logistics

All Class I ECPs against the PBL require an evaluation for regression testing.

The industry contractor shall submit proposed Class II changes to the MPO for concurrence of the classification. Upon receipt of a proposed Class II ECP the MPO has five days to review it.

After the review cycle has completed the Configuration Management Lead will inform all Industry contractors and the Defense Contracts Management Agency (DCMA) of the concurrence, or non-concurrence, with the proposed ECP’s classification. The industry contractors shall provide a list of all Class II changes as part of the Configuration Management Accounting Report.

The MPO may issue Class II changes to document administrative corrections discovered during the incorporation of approved ECPs or while performing file conversion efforts. These changes do not have any technical impact to the baseline documents or product and are only to document fixes for issues such as formatting, tabulation and indenting corrections; figure and table alignment; orientation fixes; and font or symbol character conversion, etc.

2.3.6.2 ECP Initiation

ECPs are typically the result of an emergent operational requirement, a JPR, or an IR. The MPO can solicit, or initiate, an ECP and the Industry contractors can provide unsolicited ECPs. A NOR shall be submitted with the ECP for each FBL and ABL document affected. The NOR details the “from and to” changes for the proposed document changes.

If the MPO solicits an ECP, the MPO will provide the modified FBL specification requirements to the Industry contractors. If available, the modified allocated specification requirements shall also be included. If not available, the Industry contractors shall determine and agree upon the exact wording of the allocated requirements during the MIDS JTRS ICWG process. The MPO will designate a lead contractor to initiate the NORs. After the MPO and all contractors reach an agreement, the designated lead contractor shall submit the ECP and NORs to the MPO within 30 days.

All unsolicited ECPs must be coordinated among the Industry contractors for system hardware, software, security and logistics impact during the MIDS JTRS ICWG process prior to submitting the ECP to the MPO. All ECPs with NORs will be posted as CDRLs in CDRLvue and then will be automatically transferred to CMvue where automatic notifications will be sent to the reviewers of the receipt of a new ECP. This process will expedite the MIDS JTRS ICWG review process with coordination by the MPO TOC. After all contractors reach agreement and the TOC concurs, the contractor submits the formal ECP as required within 30 days of the request by the MPO. For all Class I and Class II ECPs, the contractors shall also submit three (3) NSA assessment attachments as follows: NSA Technical Review Board (TRB) Questionnaire, NSA TEMPEST Questionnaire, and the NSA INFOSEC Assessment Form. ECPs which affect security shall be submitted 45 days prior to the date needed for approval. Security-related ECPs require NSA approval prior to CCRB. ECPs not related to security do not require NSA approval prior to MPO approval. Class II ECPs which require NSA review require an additional 45 days of processing time to allow for the NSA review cycle. The following flow chart shows the NSA involvement decision points.

FIGURE 3. NSA Approval Flow

2.3.6.3 Class I ECP Content

All Class I ECPs against the Functional, Allocated, and Product baselines shall contain the following information:

• Description of change

• Justification/rationale

• Priority

• Cost (except for PBL changes of production Terminals/equipment that are part of a BC or

BU)

• Schedule impacts

• Effectivity: Forward fit and retrofit

• Proposed delivery or Block Release

• Interchangeability issues

• Logistics/spares support

• Documents affected (including operational and maintenance manuals)

• Commonality and interoperability issues

• Support equipment impacts

• Qualification / regressive testing requirements

• EMC Features, EMC/EMI or environmental factors

• Manufacturing requirements

• Telecommunications Security (COMSEC) impacts

• Logistics

2.3.6.4 Telecommunications Security (COMSEC) and EMC Features

All ECPs require review for Telecommunications Security (COMSEC) and EMC Features impacts. The Industry contractors are responsible for obtaining and maintaining all required certifications and endorsements in accordance with associated clauses of the applicable contracts prior to implementing the changes.

Since MIDS JTRS Terminals process classified message data, it is incumbent upon the contractors to notify the MPO via the ECP process if they are considering altering the design of any HWCI or CSCI that would impact the security posture of the system.

2.3.6.5 Regression Verification and Re-qualification

For all Class I ECPs against the PBL, the industry contractors are required to analyze the impact on qualification and provide the rationale why an impact is not foreseen on the FBL, including the Host Platform Interface, or the ABL. In accordance with the applicable contracts, the industry contractors shall submit a RVP CDRL item to the MPO via the CDRLvue Module of the MIDSvue Database for Government review and approval. It shall define the necessary analysis and testing to ensure the new configuration meets all qualification requirements. Safety of Flight requirements verification is mandatory. They include requirements of temperature and altitude, random vibration, gunfire vibration, crash safety, explosive atmosphere, EMI, and electrical power. Verification may be by test, analysis, or a combination of both methods. The RVP shall include the detailed procedures for any testing required, the details of any analyses to be performed, and the details for any combination thereof. The industry contractor shall include a table that depicts (a) the requirements in the FBL to be verified as a part of the regression verification, (b) the original verification methods used during the Qualification Verification, (c) the regression verification method to be used, and (d) the rationale for the regression verification method to be used if it is different than that used during the Qualification Verification.

The industry contractors shall submit the RVP to the Government for review and approval concurrently with the corresponding PBL Class I ECP. A single RVP may address more than one ECP. The industry contractors must obtain MPO approval prior to commencing with implementation and testing. Upon successful completion of the Government approved RVP, the contractor shall submit a Regression Verification Report (RVR) to the Government. The RVR shall include the results of all tests conducted and analyses performed. Any failures shall require corrective action and retesting by the contractor. All regression testing and analyses based on the Government approved RVP shall be successfully completed before delivering the RVR. The deliverable report shall be submitted to the MPO prior to delivering the product affected by the change.

2.3.6.6 Priority (Fast Track) Engineering Changes

Fast Track changes are high priority ECPs. Fast Track ECPs provide the ability for the contractor to alert the Government of a non-conformance via an RFD before processing a formal ECP. Fast Track ECPs only apply to the FBL and ABL. The PM must agree with the priority classification prior to processing the Fast Track ECP.

The ECP is Emergency priority when the change impacts:

• National security

• Safety (which may result in fatal or serious injury to personnel or in extensive damage of equipment)

The ECP is Urgent priority when the change:

• Corrects a deficiency that seriously impacts mission effectiveness or accomplishment

• Significantly reduces cost or schedule impacts

All other changes are a routine priority.

Emergency and urgent priority changes that require immediate attention are requested from the MPO via a Critical RFD. The PM has approval authority for any RFD related to urgent or emergency changes.