Attachment_027_SEMA_Sys_Eng_Process_Guide

FIXED WING PROJECT OFFICE

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING PROCESS GUIDE

VERSION 1.0

XX Month 2015

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope

1.2 Mission

1.3 Approach to SEPG Updates

1.4 Program Description

1.4.1 Transport

1.4.2 Special Electronics Mission Aircraft (SEMA)

2.0 Functional Requirements

2.1 Airworthiness

2.2 System Safety

2.3 Quality Management

2.4 Configuration Management

2.5 Reliability Availability Maintainability (RAM)

2.5.1 AR 70-1

2.5.2 AR 750-1

2.6 Test and Evaluation

2.6.1 Program of Record

2.6.2 Aircraft Modification Acceptance Test Requirements

2.6.3 Airworthiness Qualification

2.7 FW CyberSecurity and Information Assurance Regulations

2.8 Requirements Management

3.0 Staffing and Organizational Planning

3.1 Technical Organization

3.2 Technical Division Chief

3.3 Technical Branches

3.3.1 Functional Engineering Branch

3.3.2 Mission Equipment Branch

3.3.3 Product Tech Branches (SEMA & Transport)/ Direct Support Engineering

3.3.4 System Safety Branch

4.0 Internal Technical Processes

4.1 Airworthiness

4.2 System Safety

4.3 Quality Management/Engineering

4.3.1 Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

4.3.2 Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI)

4.3.3 Quality Assurance Audit Process

4.3.4 Quality Management (QM)

4.3.5 Quality Engineering (QE)

4.4 Configuration Management

4.4.1 Configuration and Data Management Automation

4.5 Reliability Availability Maintainability (RAM)

4.5.1 RAM in New Acquisition

4.5.2 RAM in Operations and Sustainment

4.6 Test and Evaluation

4.6.1 Verification

4.6.2 Physical Configuration Aircraft (PCA)

4.6.3 Acceptance Testing

4.7 Reliability Availability and Maintainability

4.8 Information Assurance/Cybersecurity

4.8.1 Cybersecurity in New Acquisition

4.8.2 Cybersecurity (RMF) Accreditation

4.8.3 Cybersecurity Operations & Sustainment

4.8.4 Modifications or Upgrades

4.8.5 Demobilization/Decommisioning

4.8.6 Summary of Roles and Responsibilities

4.9 Requirements Management

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 SEPG Change Log

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Airworthiness Process Figure 2 Requirements Development Process Diagram Figure 3 FW PO Tech Organization Figure 4 Systems Safety Management Plan Figure 5 Quality Process Figure 6 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Process Figure 7 Quality of Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) Generation Process Figure 8 Quality Assurance Audit Process Figure 9 Configuration/Data Management Process Utilizing TopVue Figure 10 Configuration Management Working Group Figure 11 Change Control Process Figure 12 RAM Process for New Acquisition Figure 13 Test and Evaluation Process for New Acquisition Figure 14 Test Process for Aircraft Modification Figure 15 Cybersecurity for New Acquisition Figure 16 IA/Cybersecurity Accreditation Overview ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 17 Platform IT Determination Timeline ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 18 Cybersecurity Continuous Monitoring ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 19 Aircraft Modifications & Cybersecurity ............. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 20 Cybersecurity for Decommissioning/Demobilizing Figure 21 DSE and IAM Roles and Responsibilities Figure 22 Requirements Management Process Figure 23 Requirements Coordination Process Figure 24 Battle Rhythm of the Requirements Test Process

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Scope

The System Engineering Process Guide (SEPG) provides a complete, integrated technical management plan for the Fixed Wing (FW) Project Office (PO) Systems Engineering (SE) management processes and defines methods required to perform tasks associated with the FW PO mission.

This Process Guide establishes the SE approach that can be tailored to accomplish all tasks necessary to ensure that User requirements are satisfied in a timely, cost-effective manner. Standardizing SE processes and procedures across the FW PO will allow for greater efficiencies and effectiveness to be realized through consistency and repeatability. The Process Guide serves as a detailed method for planning and executing all activities required for the transformation of user needs, requirements, and constraints into the existing PM managed fleet.

When directed, each Army fixed wing aircraft platform will prepare and maintain a platform-specific System Engineering Plan (SEP). Each platform-specific SEP will describe the tailored SE approach that will be employed during a particular life cycle phase of the system.

The organization of this document includes:

• Section 1 defines document scope, content, and platform mission areas

• Section 2 defines functional requirements

• Section 3 defines technical organization, staffing, and primary task for respective functional areas

• Section 4 defines technical processes

1.2 Mission

The FW PO has life cycle management responsibility for the US Army’s fleet of fixed wing aircraft. SE is a key enabler of life cycle management and supports all life cycle management activities associated with the acquisition, development, production, fielding, sustainment, and disposal of a specific US Army fixed wing aircraft platform across its life cycle.

The FW Technical Branch has overarching responsibility for providing SE technical management and SE technical support across the life cycle of each Army fixed wing aircraft platform.

1.3 Approach to SEPG Updates

The SEPG is a living document and as a result additions, deletions, and modifications will occur as it is utilized. Updates will be incorporated as required to reflect the changes in the SE processes and procedures used to manage the FW aircraft fleet.

The Technical Branch of FW PO will be the vehicle for review and update. A revision summary documenting the review/update process will be maintained in Table 1.

Table 1 SEPG Change Log

VERSION DATE

1.0 XX Month 2015

1.4 Program Description

The history of FW aircraft in direct support of Army units has evolved over the last century including the development of centralized management by a Product Manager (PM). After the Air Force was created to provide strategic support in 1946, the Army continued to maintain a fleet of fixed wing aircraft that included everything from the L- 19/0-1 Bird Dog, OV-1 Mohawk, U-8 Queen Air/Seminole and others. These aircraft were operated by MACOMs and independent units as late as 1980 by using unit funds and soldier maintenance to sustain the fleet. In the late 1970s, the Army stopped producing crew chiefs for fixed wing fleet maintenance since the fleet size was too small to provide an advancement hierarchy. Also, during the 1980s, the US Congress directed centralized management and funding of all Special Electronic Mission Aircraft (SEMA), Operational Support Airlift (OSA) aircraft, and selected Department of the Army support aircraft. Roughly 400 aircraft fell into this category and that number was reduced by Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) directive to 256.

In 2011, the Army Acquisition Executive (AAE) direct the transfer of program management responsibilities of ~100 Army & Contractor owned aircraft to PM FW to achieve improvement in safety, airworthiness certification, manpower efficiencies, improved configuration management, and maintenance of all platforms.

The current fleet of US Army Fixed Wing Aircraft is diverse in terms of size, capability, and age. Two product offices exist within PM FW, Transport and SEMA. The current fleet of Army aircraft is aging and new requirements are emerging. New platform acquisitions are occurring as well as modification efforts are on-going to extend the service life and equip the fleet to operate in civil and tactical airspace.

1.4.1 Transport

The primary purpose of the Transport fleet is transporting time-sensitive/mission-critical items and personnel throughout the Joint Theater of Operations. The Transport fleet can also be utilized to move small amounts of cargo when needed. Several Transport aircraft are dedicated for training and special missions.

1.4.2 SEMA

The SEMA aircraft operate as an element of the Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) System to improve the acquisition, location, and dissemination of time-sensitive information and intelligence to joint warfighters at all echelons. Special electronic payloads carried in the cabin areas of these aircraft are developed by Program Executive Office (PEO) Intelligence Electronic Warfare and Sensors (IEW&S) and PM Sensors Aerial Intelligence (SAI). The SEMA fleet consists of a combination of Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) developments and Program of Record (POR) systems with the long term goal to reposture the SEMA fleet to a primarily POR fleet. In addition to the fielded ISR assets, the fleet also includes trainers and test bed aircraft

2.0 Functional Requirements

2.1 Airworthiness

The FW PO has the overall responsibility of ensuring airworthiness for all of the FW PO-managed aircraft IAW (Army Regulation) AR 70-62, Airworthiness Qualification of Aircraft Systems. This regulation prescribes the policies, processes and/or procedures for airworthiness qualification and system specification compliance of aircraft systems and subsystems, including the installation of allied equipment and modifications to Army aircraft.

As commercial derivative aircraft (CDA), all FW PO aircraft have original certification as a base aircraft within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) system. The Airworthiness processes of the US Army for FW aircraft centers around leveraging the FAA system and processes that originally certified the aircraft to the greatest extent possible or practical. However, the US Army does not utilize every aircraft exactly as the original civil certification envisioned.

The US Army Aviation Engineering Directorate (AED) serves as the Airworthiness Authority for all FW PO managed aircraft. The AED issues Airworthiness Releases (AWRs) that cover both the civil and Army unique modifications to the aircraft. The AED issues Airworthiness Qualification Plans (AQPs) for major programs and modifications which cite the Army airworthiness requirements for the program/upgrade/modification.

The AED can issue memorandums covering lesser items such as concurrences with reports or requests for extensions. Airworthiness Impact Statements (AWIS) are also issued by the AED to identify potential hazards which requires the attention of the system safety process.

2.2 System Safety

PEO Aviation has the overall responsibility for system safety management of assigned systems. The FW PO is delegated the responsibility for ensuring system safety throughout the lifecycle of all FW PO-managed aircraft IAW AR 385-10, The Army Safety Program. This responsibility includes implementing a tailored System Safety

Program (SSP) encompassing all systems under the purview of the FW PO. The goal of the SSP is to identify and mitigate or eliminate safety risks associated with those hazards through system design, operation, modifications, and support.

The FW PO also has the responsibility to develop, implement, and maintain a System Safety Management Plan (SSMP). The SSMP establishes the management policies, objectives and responsibilities for developing and executing a system safety program for the lifecycle of the FW PO managed airframes and all associated subsystems. This plan provides procedures to identify, assess, mitigate and, if possible, eliminate hazards associated with these systems. The SSMP also establishes hazard tracking requirements for all FW PO managed systems and sub-systems.

The FW PMO SSMP establishes/ defines:

• The interaction between the FW PO, FW PO System Safety Working Group (SSWG), PEO Aviation, Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), other Government functional areas, and the major contractors.

• FW PO system safety management responsibilities.

• The method by which the FW PO monitors, evaluates, and ensures the execution of the SSMP.

Aviation Maintenance Action Messages (AMAM), Aviation Safety Action Messages (ASAM) and Safety of Flight (SOF) messages are issued through AMCOM Safety with AED concurrence when required. ASAMs, AMAMs and SOF issues will be tracked and managed IAW AR 750-6, Army Equipment Safety and Maintenance Notification System.

2.3 Quality Management

AR 702-11, Army Quality Program regulation, specifies the implementation of Quality planning, organization, direction, control, and support in achieving Army objectives.

This regulation will provide the guide for the FW Quality Assurance process described in Section 4

2.4 Configuration Management (CM)

The FW PM is responsible for the decisions, actions, and directions necessary to ensure that the established CM system fulfills the project requirements. The PM will use a CM approach to establish and control product attributes and the technical baseline across the total system life per DODI 5000.02. The approach will identify, document, audit and control the functional and physical characteristics, track any changes; and provide an audit trail of program design decisions and design modifications.

2.5 Reliability Availability Maintainability (RAM)

2.5.1 AR 70-1

Ensure assigned PMs provide the warfighter with fully supportable systems that meet RAM requirements. The PMs for all programs shall formulate a viable RAM strategy that includes a reliability growth program integral to design and development, and initiate RAM engineering activities upon entering the acquisition life cycle.

These activities will influence the investment in design, engineering, manufacturing, and testing necessary to meet established requirements. All RAM programs will be structured to demonstrate RAM performance before the Full Rate Production (FRP) decision.

The PMs will track failure and repair histories for fielded systems, beginning with the first unit equipped. Tracking should focus on the identification of operating and support cost drivers and lead to cost-effective improvements. The level of data collected should be sufficient to detect component and system aging, identify components that repeatedly fail, and assess individual component reliability. The PMs should consider incorporating appropriate data collection capabilities as an integral (that is, embedded) part of their systems design, to collect this information cost effectively and unobtrusively.

2.5.2 AR 750-1

Material Developers (MATDEVs) as identified in AR 700–127 will—…c. Ensure that reliability, availability, and maintainability are included in design parameters and demonstrated during operational testing…. m. Ensure that data collected from all levels of maintenance are analyzed and used for reliability improvement and updating logistical and manpower data bases used in determining Army force structure maintenance requirements purposes.

RCM, RAM, Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT), and BDAR will be an integral part of logistics support planning by sustainment maintenance activities.

The top design priorities for supportability in the development or acquisition of new weapon systems and end items are:

(1) Embedded diagnostics, prognostics and equipment/system health management and Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) that provide accurate first time fault diagnosis for component replacement.

(2) Modular design and discard at failure instead of repair when economically practical.

(3) Increase mean time between failure (MTBF).

(4) Reduce mean time to repair (MTTR).

CBM+ is mandatory during the design and development phase and throughout the life cycle. CBM+ tenets include designing systems that require minimum maintenance;

need-driven maintenance; appropriate use of embedded diagnostics and prognostics;

improved maintenance analytical and production technologies; automated maintenance information generation; trend based reliability and process improvements; integrated information systems response based on equipment maintenance condition; and smaller maintenance and logistics support footprints. CBM+ technologies and concepts are integral to Army preventive and corrective maintenance in all Army equipment maintenance programs.

2.6 Test and Evaluation

2.6.1 Program of Record

Any POR should follow AR 73-1 Test and Evaluation Policy. AR 73-1, Test and Evaluation Policy, implements the policies and procedures of Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5000.1, DODD 3200.11, and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5000.2, and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG) and specifically prescribes implementing policies and assigns responsibilities for T&E activities during the systems acquisition processes. This regulation will provide the guide for the FW T&E process.

2.6.2 Aircraft Modification Acceptance Test Requirements

As part of the FW PO contracting for requirements, all contracts shall include provisions for the contractor to develop acceptance test plans and procedures to verify prior to acceptance and signature of a DD250. All Government lead test events should be outlined in the contract. All testing to be performed by government agencies will be coordinated through the FW Test Team. The types of testing to be performed can be broken into the following categories:

Functional testing verifies the system or subsystem under test functions as intended, providing the required service(s), method(s), or use case(s)”, i.e. the application works as intended from a user's perspective.

Performance testing is executed to verify the system or subsystem under test meets the performance-related requirements.

Reliability testing verifies the system or subsystem under test performs its required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time.

Airworthiness testing is a demonstrated capability of an aircraft, subsystem, or component to function satisfactorily when used within its prescribed limits. This includes maintenance procedures including intervals and conditions for inspection, replacement, and overhaul that are required for sustaining the continued airworthiness.

2.6.3 Airworthiness Qualification

The FW PO is responsible for airworthiness of all aircraft which requires demonstrated performance within prescribed limits. The process for airworthiness is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Airworthiness Process

When the FW PM develops or modifies aircraft, aircraft allied equipment, or carry-on equipment for in-flight operation, the PM will—

(1) Fund for development of the system design, design documentation, and verification activities to generate airworthiness data.

(2) Ensure that the airworthiness requirements of the Army or other applicable airworthiness authority have been met.

(3) Ensure all other regulatory requirements, such as spectrum management clearances, are met.

(4) Obtain airworthiness release prior to fielding the aircraft system.

2.7 FW CyberSecurity and Information Assurance Regulations

The FW PO has the overall responsibility of ensuring cybersecurity is addressed for all of the FW PO-managed aircraft IAW AR 25-2. The goal of cybersecurity is to ensure all DoD information and information systems are protected at the appropriate level of confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The FW PO may delegate execution of cybersecurity compliance activities to contractors or other organizations consistent with applicable contracts, memoranda of agreement (MOAs), and transition plans.

All Fixed Wing platform IT and mission equipment are subject to the following DoD and Army Cybersecurity regulations:

• AR 25-2, “Information Assurance (IA)”

• DoD 8500.01, “CyberSecurity”

• DoD 8510.01, “Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT)”

• DoD 8570.01, “IA Training Certification, and Workforce Management”

• DoDI 8580.1, “IA in the Defense Acquisition System”

CNSSI No. 1253, “Security Categorization and Control Selection for National Security Systems”

• NIST 800-53, “Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations”

• Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) of 2002

Top Secret (TS)/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) systems are also subject to the following requirements:

• Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) No. 503, “Intelligence Community Information Technology Systems Security Risk Management, Certification, and Accreditation”

• ICD No. 703, “Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities”

All applicable FW systems will be certified and accredited IAW DoD 8510.01 and/or ICD

503. AR 25-2 also mandates Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) or routine and proactive patch management as the absolute minimum standard for all Army information systems.

2.8 Requirements Management (RM)

RM is governed by MIL-STD-499C, and represented by the Requirements Development Process Diagram below. The RM Process is a part of the MIL-STD-499C SE Process, and is contained in paragraph 4.2 of the MIL-STD. For new platform acquisitions, additional guidance for requirements management is contained within the SEP, and Performance Work Statement (PWS)/Statement of Work (SOW).

Figure 2 Requirements Development Process Diagram

3.0 Staffing and Organizational Planning

The purpose of this section is to describe FW PMO Technical Organization, roles and responsibilities, and their associated task by functional area.

3.1 Technical Organization

The FW PO Technical Organization is tailored to provide an optimal mix of general and direct support engineers to each of the Transport and SEMA product offices. The program personnel are organized in a functional manner to best develop functional skills and obtain efficiencies across the product lines.

Figure 3 FW PO Tech Organization

3.2 Technical Division Chief

The Division Chief is responsible for providing all technical and engineering support to the Project and Product Managers and guide the implementation of SE across the organization.

3.3 Technical Branches

The Technical Organization is broken into 5 Branches that provide direct and general support to the Transport and SEMA Product Offices.

3.3.1 Functional Engineering Branch

The Functional Engineering Branch provides general support to the project office by implementing processes common to all products. The branch provides support for CM, Data Management (DM), Quality Management, RAM, and T & E. The following paragraphs provide the primary task associated with each functional area.

3.3.1.1 Quality Management Task

3.3.1.1.1 Provide Quality language for contracts, Quality Assurance Plans (QAPs), Quality Management Plans (QMPs), Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans (QASPs), and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Letters of Delegation (LODs)

3.3.1.1.2 Provide communication and direction to DCMA in regard to Quality Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI), LODs, MOAs for all FW contracts

3.3.1.1.3 Review contractor proposals for compliance to contractual requirements

3.3.1.1.4 Participate in Functional/Physical Configuration Audits

3.3.1.1.5 Provide oversight for aircraft modification effort

3.3.1.1.6 Issue Corrective Action Requests (CARs) for contractual non-compliances

3.3.1.1.7 Provide Contracting Office (KO) with technical advice on Corrective

Actions and contractual non-compliance

3.3.1.1.8 Provide guidance/lead all audits of contractors supporting FW PM

3.3.1.1.9 Perform aircraft acceptance/DD 250 as needed

3.3.1.1.10 Participate in technical reviews to ensure adequacy of the products/systems development, design, test, and procurement to satisfy requirements including statutory and regulatory

3.3.1.1.11 Ensure contractor has an adequate Quality Management System (QMS) which provides control over a system on interlinked processes

3.3.1.2 CM Task

The FW PO has developed a Configuration Management Plan (CMP) which identifies the configuration management and data management tools, process and standards that are used to process configuration and data management documentation throughout the program life cycle of aircraft managed by FW PO. The CMP is used to document FW PO internal processes of configuration and data management functions. Each individual program’s SEP will further define the execution of applicable CM processes when it’s specific for a given program.

CM functions include planning, configuration identification, change control, configuration status accounting, configuration audits and data management.

3.3.1.3 RAM Task

3.3.1.3.1 Support PM FW programs IAW DoD Guide for Achieving RAM

3.3.1.3.2 Support requirements for RAM data collection and reporting

3.3.1.3.3 RAM Scoring/Analysis Process- Data acquisition, logging, scoring, classification, analysis, reporting

3.3.1.3.4 Host bi-weekly project RAM Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) to ensure coordinated efforts between key stakeholders

3.3.1.3.5 Provide support for system sustainment and corrective actions for issues identified in RAM analytical processes

3.3.1.3.6 Provides traceability of failures and trend analysis capabilities for top cost drivers

3.3.1.3.7 Ensure PM-FW provides the warfighter with fully supportable systems that meet RAM requirements

3.3.1.3.8 Ensure that RAM is included in design parameters and demonstrated during operational testing

3.3.1.4 T&E Task

The FW PO T&E group works with each program/aircraft modification to manage all test and evaluation planning, coordination and support throughout the life cycle of each program managed by FW PO. The T&E functions include but are not limited to the following:

3.3.1.4.1 T&E planning, coordination and support to all FW Programs (i.e.: E3, Handling Qualities, Performance, Comm/Nav, Primary Mission Equipment (PME), Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) to include test planning, test documentation development and on site test support)

3.3.1.4.2 Provide direction to contractors, AED, Aviation Flight Test Directorate (AFTD) and Redstone Test Center (RTC) in conducting tests required to support air worthiness and certification of all PM FW Aircraft

3.3.1.4.3 Host T&E Working Integrated Product Teams (WIPTs) for assigned programs and coordinate programs with Other Government Agencies (OGAs)

3.3.1.4.4 Host test working group meetings with vested parties to fully integrate a test and evaluation strategy for Fixed Wing programs

3.3.1.4.5 Provide T&E expertise in development of contract documentation, SOW, Statement of Objectives (SOO), PWS, System Design Review (SDR), Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

3.3.1.4.6 Provide support to SSWG, Supportability Integrated Product Team (SIPT), CN, Configuration Control Boards (CCBs) and other working groups as needed

3.3.2 Mission Equipment Branch

The Mission Equipment Branch includes Avionics and Aircraft Survivability Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and provides general support to each of the product offices. The branch also provides general support to the product lines with respect to implementation of RM and IA processes. The following paragraphs provide the primary task associated with each functional area.

3.3.2.1 Avionics

3.3.2.1.1 Identify fleet current Communication Navigation and Surveillance

(CNS) capabilities/material solutions in order to baseline for future configuration changes and respond to taskers

3.3.2.1.2 Cognizant of current and emerging CNS requirements/gaps and material solutions available to develop strategy to fill gaps

3.3.2.1.3 Develop and Coordinate CNS Modernization Strategy/Timelines and communicate with stakeholders to ensure synchronization (FW PMO Avionics PMs & Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), TRADOC Capabilities Manager for Lift (TCM-L), Capabilities Requirements Directorate (CRD), G-8 Force Development Branch (FDB), United States Army Aeronautical Services Agency (USAASA), PEO-AVN)

3.3.2.1.4 Develop CNS Implementation Guide providing technical details on how to implement material solutions (ie: Size, Weight & Power (SWAP), Supplemental Type Certificate (STC),), Service Bulletin (SB), Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) to assist in the develop of PWS and Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) to support Request for Proposals (RFPs)

3.3.2.1.5 Assist Direct Support Engineers (DSE) and Program Integrators (PIs) in implementing strategy and resolving CNS technical/sustainment issues to ensure readiness

3.3.2.1.6 Monitor Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) registry for tactical software products that can be reused and be knowledgeable of FACE standards to meet PEO direction to implement FACE to meet the Army’s transition to Common Operating Environment (COE)

3.3.2.2 Aircraft Survivability

3.3.2.2.1 Identify fleet current ASE capabilities/materials solutions in order to baseline for future configuration changes and respond to taskers

3.3.2.2.2 Cognizant of current and emerging ASE requirements/fleet survivability gaps and material solutions available to develop strategy to fill gaps

3.3.2.2.3 Develop and Coordinate ASE Modernization Strategy /Timelines and communicate with stakeholders to ensure synchronization (FW PMO, ASE PMs & OEMs, PM SAI, PEO-AVN, TCM-L, CRD, TRADOC Capabilities Manager- Intelligence Sensors (TCM-IS), Aircraft Survivability Development and Tactics Team (ASDAT) Army Reprogramming Analysis Team (ARAT))

3.3.2.2.4 Assist DSEs and PIs in implementing strategy and resolving ASE technical/sustainment issues to ensure readiness

3.3.2.2.5 Optimize ASE effectiveness by working with ASE PMs (ASE/Closed Combat System (CCS)/272), ARAT and Modeling & Simulation (M&S) labs

3.3.2.3 Information Assurance

3.3.2.3.1 Establish Relationships with:

3.3.2.3.1.1 PEO AVN Assistant IAPM/PEO AVN Platform PM Information

Assurance Managers (IAMs) in order to maintain currency of IA policies and best practices for implementation

3.3.2.3.1.2 Mission equipment organizations and their workforce to provide PM FW situational awareness of IA accreditation status on SEMA QRC/POR aircraft for which they are responsible

3.3.2.3.2 Evaluate Platform & Mission Equipment Package (MEP) architectures/IA boundaries/ System Security Plans (SSPs) to determine DoD RMF categorization

3.3.2.3.3 Ensure IA requirements are incorporated into FW contracts (Life Cycle Contract Support (LCCS) & development/production) to protect data and obtain test data to acquire and maintain IA accreditation

3.3.2.3.4 Registered in the Army Portfolio Management System (APMS) to assist with IT purchases and obtain visibility into relevant entries for compliance and completeness

3.3.2.3.5 Army Certification and Tracking System (ACTCS) POC for IA training to report to FW in support of PEO-AVN accreditation

3.3.2.4 Requirement Management

3.3.2.4.1 Provide traceability from User Requirements to product level specification requirements

3.3.2.4.2 Provide traceability from user requirements to platform material solutions

3.3.2.4.3 Support Development of SOO/SOW/PWS/System Requirements Document (SRD)

3.3.3 Product Tech Branches (SEMA & Transport)/ Direct Support Engineering

Each of the Product Offices have been staffed with direct support engineers that work directly with product leads (PdM/DPM/APM/PI) and provide reachback to general support engineers to implement tech processes across their respective platforms.

3.3.3.1 DSE Task

3.3.3.1.1 Programmatics- supporting day to day operations which include PM support, scheduling, engineering analysis, documentation preparation, aircraft bulletins (FAA and Military)

3.3.3.1.2 Modernization- update and/or modernize the FW fleet to meet CNS-Air Traffic Management (ATM), Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) or military requirements Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module

(SAASM)

3.3.3.1.3 Airworthiness- provide interface support with AED and user/LCCS on airworthiness issues, including new equipment, repairs

3.3.3.1.4 Other- supporting CM, T&E, Safety, Quality in daily support of the FW fleet

3.3.3.1.5 Sensor Integration- military package that is not part of the aircraft but used for ISR operations

3.3.4 System Safety Branch

The system safety branch provides general support to the product lines with respect to implementation of PM FW SSP.

3.3.4.1 System Safety Task

3.3.4.1.1 Enterprise Safety Progammatics- Staff Meetings, Mandatory and Professional Training, Enterprise Meetings.

3.3.4.1.2 System Safety Management- SSMP Review, Safety Data Base Management, Risk Management Information System (RMIS) Inquiries, AMCOM Message Tracking System (AMTRACK), Hazard Tracking (HAZTRACK), Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS) TopVue, FAA Coordination, SSWG Planned

3.3.4.1.3 Hazard Management- Ad hoc SSWG, System Safety Risk

Assessments, Risk Determination Memorandums, Airworthiness Releases, AWIS, Accident co-ord and information research, trend analysis

3.3.4.1.4 Airworthiness- Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) reviews, SB review, Message processing (SOF, ASAM, AMAM, Maintenance Information Message (MIM)), Technical Publications Airworthiness Directives Aircraft assessment, facilities inspection, CCB

4.0 Internal Technical Processes

4.1 Airworthiness

Direct support engineers are responsible for tasking AED to obtain AWRs with respect to modifications to aircraft, repairs outside the Structural Repair Manager (SRM), or changes to the maintenance program. Tasking’s can also include request for AED data and testing requirements relative to modifications to aircraft that will impact airworthiness. FW Direct Support Systems Engineers and AED Systems Engineers should work together daily in an effort to obtain AWRs to meet program suspense’s.

Requests for AED efforts by the PO is done via Sharepoint tasking. Tasking is approved by the FW technical leadership before being actioned upon by the AED staff. Higher order documents such as AWRs and AWIS require FW involvement prior to issuance by the AED. A draft copy of the AWR is provided to the PO prior to AED front office review/signature/issuance. FW PO staff (as designated by the SEMA and Transport offices) sign the AWR Memorandum for Record (MFR) acknowledging review of the AWR draft and provide any comments back to AED on said MFR. AWIS drafts are provided to the PO staff for review and to provide customer comments which, per AED AWIS procedures, are included within the AWIS. These comments are generally provided by the Technical Leads for SEMA/Transport or the PO Technical Chief with consult from the various interested parties within the PMO such as System Safety.

4.2 System Safety

System Safety and Risk Management are defined by PEO AVN policy and delegated to FW PO for assigned fixed wing assets. The FW PO SSMP establishes the requirements management policies, objectives and responsibilities for developing and executing a system safety program for the lifecycle of the FW PO managed airframes and all associated subsystems. The plan provides procedures to identify, assess, mitigate and, if possible, eliminate hazards associated with these systems. It also establishes hazard tracking requirements for all FW PO managed systems and sub-systems.

The FW PO SSMP is applicable to all Government and contractor personnel as the requirements document for the FW PO SSP. The interaction between the FW PO, FW PO SSWG, PEO AVN, USAAMCOM, other Government functional areas, and the major contractors are defined. System safety management responsibilities are also established herein. The SSMP establishes the methods by which the FW PO monitors, evaluates, and ensures the execution of the SSP. This plan is prepared IAW DA Pam 385-10 and DA Pam 385-16 and is compliant with AR 385-10 and

MIL-STD-882E.

The FW PO System Safety Engineers manage and maintain the SSMP.

Figure 4 Systems Safety Management Plan

4.3 Quality Management/Engineering

The goal of the quality program is to verify that all products, services performed and documentation to be delivered meet all technical requirements and to assure those requirements are adequately and accurately defined and documented within the Technical Data Package (TDP) and contracted for. The QA process defined herein shall be used to examine all deliverable products, services and documentation to determine compliance with technical and performance requirements.

Figure 5 Quality Process

4.3.1 Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

FW PO QA will review and monitor the contractors Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), which is developed IAW DI-QCIC-81794. The QAPP will describe the methodology used throughout all phases of the program (development, fabrication, test, delivery, and post-delivery support) to meet the quality requirements for this program. This plan will maximize the use of existing policies and procedures to the extent that they meet the quality requirements of this document and shall contain a listing of the procedures that are used to satisfy the QA requirements of the program.

4.3.1.1 QASP

FW will generate and maintain QASPs for all LCCS contracts managed by FW PO. The QASP is a Government developed and applied document used to assure that systematic quality assurance methods are used in contract administration, and to ensure the Government receives quality services and pays only for services actually provided. The QASP also provides a systematic method to evaluate the services the contractor is required to furnish. The overall intent is to ensure the contractor:

• Performs IAW with the contract’s PWS guidelines

• Delivers quality products and services

• Provides an acceptable level of service while achieving goals and schedule dates

The QASP does not detail how the contractor accomplishes the work nor intends to duplicate the contractor’s quality assurance efforts. Instead, the QASP is created with the premise that the contractor, not the Government, is responsible for the management and quality control actions necessary to meet the quality standards set forth by the PWS and contract terms. It is the Government’s responsibility to oversee the contractor's performance to assure that it is timely, effective, and that it delivers the results specified in the terms of the contract.

Figure 6 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Process

4.3.2 QALI

FW PO QA, with input from FW DSEs, will develop QALIs. A QALI provides specific instructions to FW representatives designated to perform QA oversight of aircraft maintenance/modification activities. Draft QALIs are submitted to Quality Management Division Engineering Directorate AMCOM Research, Development and Engineering Center for completion IAW QM SOP-030. FW QM reviews the QALI then submits it to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). The PCO reviews, approves, and then issues a letter authorizing the Administrative Contracting Office (ACO)/ Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to implement the QALI.

The QALI generation process is defined in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 Quality of Assurance Letter of Instruction (QALI) Generation Process

4.3.3 QA Audit Process

As required, FW QA will conduct audits IAW with the basic QMS audit process as indicated in Figure 8 below. Audits, both internal and external, expose the health of a QMS. ISO and AS 9100/9110 both require auditing process as a tool to ensure QMS/contractual compliance. The Audit process will be developed IAW ISO 19011:2011(E). This is the documentation that guides auditors on how to conduct audits for ISO and AS 9100/9110 Quality Systems.

Figure 8 Quality Assurance Audit Process

Roles and Responsibilities Team Lead The Audit Team Lead will

• select team members based on technical expertise and ensure team members understand the roles and responsibilities of their position,

• assign responsibilities to the Audit Team members,

• coordinate the audit schedule with the supplier’s QA

Initiate Audit Preparing

Contact Auditees

Prepare Audit Activities Document Review

Audit Plan Assignments Checklists

Conduct Audit Opening Brief to Auditees

Document Review Communication

Collect and verify data Document Findings Review Audit Results

Prepare Audit Report Brief Auditees

Conduct Audit Follow Up

• conduct a formal in-brief and exit brief to supplier representatives and end customer of the services provided

• ensure all write-ups are formally assigned to supplier Quality Manager (QM) for disposition

Audit Team Members Audit Team Members will

• perform audits in their respective area of expertise and as needed will be tasked with assisting other team members in performing audits, assisting with information gathering and processing, and performing follow-up actions,

• provide a list of all documentation needed to perform the audit to the Audit Team Lead prior to the audit, so it can be requested at the formal in-brief,

• review Corrective Actions Responses, Root Cause Analysis, and Preventive Action for their respective field for disposition and effectiveness, and

• conduct their audits in a professional manner, avoiding interrupting day to day activities causing work stoppages or delays.

Audit Findings

• Individual audit findings should include conformity and good practices along with their supporting evidence, opportunities for improvement, and any recommendations to those audited.

The Audit Team will be cautioned to avoid any appearance of requiring a constructive change to the contract.

• Formal documented write ups will be made for all observances, even if corrected on the spot.

• Serious safety related write ups will be addressed ASAP and the audit process will be halted until the safety concern is resolved. Then only after approved by the Audit Team Leader will the audit resume.

• Write ups not corrected on the spot will require Root Cause Analysis, Corrective action and Preventive Action.

Records

• All audit records will be maintained by the FW PO Quality Management Division

4.3.4 Quality Management

Quality Management activities should be performed throughout the life cycle of the FW LCCS contracts. As part of the plan, the LCCS Fixed Wing Matrix (Attachment One) identifies, by Aircraft and Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)/ Sub-Contract Line Item Number (SCLIN) and task, those processes, services, tools, deliverables, documentation requirements, Management Reviews, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/ Government Furnished Materials (GFM) provisions and controls, Bed Down Base locations and operations where pre and post flight checks will be performed and Depots where overhaul and maintenance will be performed which this QMP will apply to. The Matrix also identifies functional areas responsible for oversight, and defines the specific task and order of responsibility/report ability within the FW PMO. Quality maintenance requirements for LCCS contracting efforts are located in the Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Plan.

4.3.5 Quality Engineering (QE)

The FW PMO QE program will ensure that QE Requirements are placed in contract SOO/SOW.

QE is critical in ensuring that a consistent product is manufactured that meets all requirements and is delivered to the FW PMO. Quality is built into the design by defining quality objectives integrated into the aircraft modification through quality representation on the IPTs, and by implementing continuous product/process improvement and variability reduction techniques throughout the program.

When contracting for modernization effort, the contractor shall be required to implement, or if already in place maintain, a QMS IAW ANSI/ISO/AS 9001:2008 or AS 9100 or equivalent systems as agreed between the contractor and the Government. Any exclusion to the contractor’s QMS shall be agreed to between the contractor and the FW PO. The FW PO will review contractor documents that comprise the quality system, and may perform any necessary inspections, or evaluations to confirm conformance to requirements and adequacy of the quality system.

The FW PO QE will administer the contractors Quality Program Plan (QPP). The QPP will describe the methodology used throughout all phases of the program (development, fabrication, test, delivery and post-delivery support) to meet the quality requirements for this program. This plan will maximize the use of existing policies and procedures to the extent that they meet the quality requirements of this document and shall contain a listing of the procedures that are used to satisfy the QA requirements of the program.

4.4 CM

CM interfaces with the IPTs, organizations and various functionals to identify and control product configurations and to manage change and release activities.

4.4.1 CM and DM Automation

PW PO has implemented TopVue, a commercial-off-the-shelf product, as its authoritative database for configuration and data management.

CDRLVue is used for contract and CDRL data management. The system generates CDRLs (DD Form 1423s) and is the centralized location for contractor CDRL submittals.

CMVue is used for overall configuration management. The system tracks aircraft hierarchy of selected parts affecting model/tail specific aircraft. Change control and compliance (ECP, AD/SB/TD/SL, AMAM, ASAM, RFD/V, etc.). The system tracks documentation affected such as AD/SB/TD/SL, ECPs, AWRs, AWIS, TC/STC, etc.

Figure 9 Configuration/Data Management Process Utilizing TopVue

DSEs support the procedures and processes of CM. DSEs should work closely with CM to ensure the functions of CM are being appropriately executed across their assigned programs. These functions include:

• Configuration identification by participating in the Configuration Management Working Group and Parts Working Group.

Figure 10 Configuration Management Working Group

• Change control by reviewing and providing technical input to Airworthiness Directives

(ADs)/SBs/Technical Directives(TDs)/Service Letters(SLs), Class I ECPs, Elective Improvements, Request for Deviation/Variances (RFD/V) and executing the CCB process as it pertains to their functional area.

Figure 11 Change Control Process

• Status accounting by reviewing and verifying approved configuration items/parts;

• Configuration audits by being a key player in verifying the product meets the functional requirements and providing support to ensure the as-built configuration is accurately reflected in the released documentation.

• Data management by ensuring appropriate technical data is obtained through development of PWS/SOW requirements to include drawings, specifications and plans.

Timely responses to reviewing technical data provided through the CDRL submittal process.

4.5 RAM

The FW PMO RAM establishes the requirements to acquire quality systems that satisfy user needs with measureable improvements to mission capability and operational support in a timely manner, and at a fair and reasonable price.

The FW PMO will establish a RAM process IAW DOD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability. The RAM process is managed and maintained in the RAM Plan. The RAM process encompasses all phases of the acquisition process, from Material Solution Analysis through Operations and Sustainment.

4.5.1 RAM in New Acquisition

The following diagram gives an overview of the RAM process for new acquisition.

Figure 12 RAM Process for New Acquisition

4.5.1.1 RAM in Requirements Development

DSE’s should notify the FW RAM Lead of new program requirements so that the FW RAM team can provide guidance on current aviation reliability trends and technology. Also to determine whether draft RAM requirements are relevant, achievable, and testable. This process is called the Reliability, Availability and Maintainability Cost (RAM-C) Report.

4.5.1.2 RAM as part of the Acquisition Strategy

DSEs should notify the FW RAM Lead early in the development of Program documents such as:

Acquisition Strategy, SEP, Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) to ensure adequate RAM policies are present.

4.5.1.3 RAM in Contracts

DSE’s should notify the FW RAM Lead of new Contract Requirements Package (CRP) items development to ensure that important RAM Contract Deliverable Items are included. These contract items ensure that the contractor performs analysis and testing needed to meet the RAM requirements of the system. Some Contract deliverables typical of a new aircraft procurement include:

• Reliability Program Plan (RPP)

• RAM Predictions and Allocations Report

• RAM Reliability Models (i.e. Reliability Black diagrams, Fault Trees)

• Failure Mode Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA)

• Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS)

• Aircraft maintenance action reports during the contract period

4.5.1.4 RAM in Testing

DSEs should continuously update the FW RAM lead on upcoming aircraft tests during development. ATEC typically requires the RAM requirements are verified and validated via Data Collection during testing cycles. Early notification allows adequate preparation and ensures that qualified personnel are in place to record RAM data.

4.5.2 RAM in Operations and Sustainment

DSEs should be near continuous contact with RAM Team members. RAM team members should be notified of aircraft modifications, safety incidents, obsolete parts, repair issues, Technical manual updates, maintenance changes, AMAMs, MIMs, ASAMs and other items relevant of RAM.

DSEs should also participate in the applicable RAM IPT and work with RAM team to improve the RAM status of all PMFW aircraft.

4.6 T & E

The T& E Manager is responsible to the PM FW Technical Division Chief to develop and execute a coordinated test and evaluation strategy with internal and external team members/agencies that will verify system performance, system safety and provide General Support Engineering (GSE) to the PD/APM. The GSE will support PM FW SE and AED AWR development and processes. The DSE, assigned to the PD/APM, will assist the GSE in the planning of the test and evaluation strategies in support of Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) development. The DSE and GSE will collectively review related SE processes and validation and verification processes to ensure all acquisitions/modifications meet performance specifications, AED airworthiness and System Safety requirements, and interrelated Logistics

Materiel Release and Safety Confirmation Processes. Figure 6a and 6b depict the FW PMO SE and T&E processes.

The GSE responsibilities for aircraft modification processes:

1. Review system modification documentation (P3I, In Service Mod, Component Upgrade)

2. Review test plans and procedures required evaluate aircraft modifications.

3. Review acceptance test procedures.

4. Coordinate required testing with contractors and Government Agencies to ensure performance of modification is verified, maintain…