PSM TM Contract and QA Guidebook Conversion_Locked August 2019_V1.pdf

Foreword

This “how to” guidebook provides the framework and a best business practice for Product Support Managers (PSM) to follow as they put into action the procedures for development of Technical Manuals (TM) and the related Logistics Product Data (LPD) which are one of the 12 logistics elements detailed in Army Regulation 700-127, Integrated Product Support dated 22 October, 2018.

Use of the procedures outlined in this guidebook provides the following benefits:

• Standardizes the TM development process which decreases the cost, time, and manpower required to perform TM verifications.

• Increases partnering between the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) required to guide the OEM in the government unique TM development processes.

• Ensures the government reviews incremental deliveries and if necessary rejects non-compliant deliverables.

• Establishes best contracting practices to ensure contracts are structured properly to receive quality TMs.

Please send your questions, comments, and suggestions pertaining to this guidebook and/or the TM development process to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) Acquisition Policy and Logistics (APL) Directorate, htps://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contrac�ng-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contracting-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contracting-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success

Purpose This Guidebook standardizes the TM development process for both the government and industry and provides the PSM with a tool that:

• Clarifies roles and responsibilities.

• Establishes procedures from contracting through development and review that enable quality, usable, and accurate TMs at fielding.

• Documents a logistics product development process that enables organic support by First Unit Equipped (FUE).

• Provides standard statement of work language that can be modified and tailored to support unique program requirements.

• Product Support Analyses (PSA) specifications and standards to improve the quality of Logistics Product Data (LPD) development which is the building block of the TM.

This Guidebook also references a recommended contract vehicle that Program Managers and Life Cycle Management Commands (LCMCs) can use for their TM development and sustainment efforts.

Background History has shown us that lack of risk reduction planning during system development, lack of tailored procurement of technical data, TM and LPD development and delivery is a systemic problem that frequently delays the fielding of new or modified warfighting capabilities. These delays often force us into alternative fielding strategies that require costly interim contractor support (ICS) to bridge the gap between hardware issue and the supporting logistics infrastructure. Contracting is the foundation upon which the TM development rests. A good contract, that is monitored accurately, ensures the government receives deliverables that meet quality standards, are timely, and holds all parties accountable for performance. Our Army is rapidly changing the way we execute research and development, requirements generation, and materiel acquisition. As the Army implements acquisition streamlining and reform, our contracting methodologies and approaches must reform in concert.

This guidebook establishes a best business practice for the development, review, and delivery of TMs and associated LPD. The intent is to inform Product Support Managers (PSMs) and their teams in the effective use of source selection and evaluation criteria and contracting methodologies. The source selection and evaluation criteria and contracting methodologies establish the foundation for the delivery of accurate and usable TM and LPD. Further, the monitoring and enforcement of the contract through the PSM IPT early and incremental review, is also a key enabler in reducing the time and resources required to conduct the TM verification and other critical acquisition test events.

Oversight

The DASA APL will coordinate with Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Logistics Data Analysis Center (LDAC) to track the percent of programs that are successful in developing quality, usable, and accurate TMs to support validation, enable cost savings, and reduce Soldier requirements during verification. PMs will submit the TM contract development checklist as an annex to the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). The checklist may be downloaded from the DASA(APL) guidebook webpage at htps://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contrac�ng-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success. The LCMC EPCO will submit all validation and verification plans and reports to the DA Electronic Manual Validation and Verification Plan Repository at https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/department-of-army-electronic-manual-validation-and-verification-plan-repository.

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contracting-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/psm-tm-contracting-and-qa-guidebook-revisions-and-feedback?invite=false&edit=success https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/department-of-army-electronic-manual-validation-and-verification-plan-repository https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/department-of-army-electronic-manual-validation-and-verification-plan-repository

Roles:

DASA(APL):

• Oversight of PSMs and Acquisition Logistics Policy.

PSM:

• Responsible for developing and delivering quality TMs.

• TM and LPD development to include, initial funding, source selection evaluation criteria, statement of work development, contract monitoring, deliverable review and the Integrated Product Team (IPT) required to develop the TM documents.

• Responsible for establishing the PSM IPT in order to support the development of the SOW and review of all deliverables.

AMC Life Cycle Management Command (LCMC) Integrated Logistics Command (ILSC) and Army Logistics Commands (ALC):

• Equipment Publications Certification Officer (EPCO) — ensures streamlined contract language to meet Army Publishing requirements. Participates in the PSM IPT TM contract development and deliverable review process. Approves the verification of the technical manual in order to authenticate through LDAC and Army Publishing Directorate (APD).

• Provides the technical writer and provisioner required to review and concur with all deliverables. Leads the TM verification event, is a key member of the PSM IPT contract development and deliverable review and concurrence process.

• For in-house government developed TMs, the technical writer coordinates development, updates and changes over the life cycle of the TM.

• Coordinates review by safety and environmental offices.

AMC LDAC:

• Coordinates directly with the EPCOs.

• Can participate in PSM IPT deliverable reviews and assist with TM validation and verification events.

• Coordinates with APD and provides the final reproducible copy of the TM to APD for authentication and printing.

• Loads the TM onto Electronic TM (ETM) website and coordinates for updates over the life cycle of the

TM.

• Tracks metrics associated with checklists, validation and verification reports.

TRADOC:

• User representative for field level maintenance logistics, and maintenance training.

• Key member of the PSM IPT and provides concurrence on TMs during verification, maintainability assessments, and maintenance evaluations.

• User representatives fall under various TRADOC organizations.

Þ TRADOC Capabilities Manager (TCM).

Þ Combined Armed Support Command (CASCOM) System Integration Division (SID Maintenance

Training Representative) and Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Division (Maintenance and Logistics Soldier Representative) .

ATEC:

• Independent evaluator for suitability and member of the PSM IPT.

Table of Contents

1. Part I —Technical Manual Development Timeline and Quality Review Process TM Incremental Development Timeline of Events and PSM IPT Activities ………

Table 1: PSM IPT Members

Figure 1: TM Flow chart Developmental Program

Figure 2: TM Flow chart PSM IPT Quality Review Process

Figure 3: TM Flow chart COTS/NDI Program

2. Product Support Manager’s Integrated Product Team Quality Review Process

3. COTS/NDI 6-12 Month Development Timeline

2. Part II Framing Technical Manual Development

1. Schoolhouse Impact to TM Development

2. Product Support Analysis and Logistics Product Data Impact to TM Development

2.1 Product Support Analysis

2.1.1. Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis input to TM development

2.1.2. Level of Repair Analysis Inputs into TM Development

Table 2 – Product Support Analysis Standards and Rela�onships

3. Logistics Product Data Definitions

3. Part III Technical Manual Development and Defense Acquisition Framework

1. TMs at Milestone A and Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase

2. TMs at Milestone B and Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase

3. TMs at Milestone C and Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase

4. TMs at Maintainability Demonstration and Evaluation

5. TM Verification Planning

4. Part IV Technical Manual Development Contract Guidance

1. Integrated Master Schedule Planning

2. Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria (SSEC) Development

3. Optional Contracting Vehicle

4. Post Contract Award

5. Deliverable Review and Quality Assurance Process

6. Data Rights

7. Contracting for Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Manuals

8. COTS with Modifications and NDI Programs

5. Part V Standard Statement of Work Contract Language

1.1 – 4.0 Statement of Work language

5. Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria (SSEC) Development

6. Optional Contracting Vehicle

7. Post Contract Award

List of References

Appendices:

A. Sample Rejection Letter

B. Sample Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)

C. Sample Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

D. Policy Memo Referencing Manufacturer’s Name

E. Clarification of Policy Memorandum: Representative Soldiers for TM Verifications

PART I TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE AND QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS

1. TM Incremental Development Timeline and PSM IPT Activities

1.1. Determine TM Development Strategy:

Step One: In order to determine which manual type is relevant to a program, the PSM needs to coordinate with the user representative, technical writer and EPCO to discuss the program’s unique characteristics and product support strategy. The PSM, user representative, technical writer, and EPCO will review Army Regulation (AR) 25- 30, paragraphs 3-25 through 3-29 to determine which manual type is applicable to their program. The three types of manuals a program may pursue are:

• Department of Army (DA) Authenticated TMs: Army technical manuals that meet all format and matrix requirements of the DoD Military Standard for Technical Manual Preparation, MIL-STD-40051. This Standard establishes the technical content requirements and mandatory style and format requirements for the preparation of paper and digital TMs.

• DA-authenticated Commercial-of-the-Shelf (COTS) TMs: Existing commercial manuals that are acquired for Army use and will be supplemented in some way to meet Army needs. These manuals will be assessed against the requirements of the Performance Specification: Evaluation and Preparation of Supplemental Data, MIL-PRF-32216A which provides criteria for evaluation of COTS manuals for acceptance. The MIL- PRF also provides requirements for preparing supplemental data to COTS manuals. A COTS technical manual receives a TM number and is verified and authenticated by the government.

• Manufacturer Manuals: Existing manufacturer’s manuals acquired for Army use with no supplementation or modification required. This type of manual is not referred to as technical manual or technical equipment publication (these manuals do not receive a TM number). Further, commercial manuals will not be verified or authenticated by the government.

DA-authenticated TMs. AR 25-30, paragraph 3-25 outlines the criteria for developing an authenticated TM to the MIL-STD-40051. These apply to traditional developmental programs developed specifically for military use. These programs are high density or high dollar value and will be provisioned using the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), therefore, require validation, verification and authentication. Developmental programs often begin at MS A and or early MS B and prior to Preliminary Design Review (PDR). These TMs will be developed using the interactive authoring and display software (IADS). PSMs are required to request extensible markup language (XML) source files as part of the contract.

DA-authenticated COTS TMs. AR 25-30, paragraphs 3-26, 3-27, and 3-28 outline manual requirements for modified COTS and non-developmental items (NDI). The manual development process requires a discussion between the PSM, the user representative, technical writer, and the EPCO, to determine which manual type meets the unique requirements of the program. There must be an evaluation of the manufacturer manual against MIL- PRF-32216A in order to determine the manual’s ability to meet user needs and authentication requirements. The MIL-PRF-32216A is not intended to be “regulatory,” rather it is guidance for evaluation purposes. The PSM, user representative, technical writer, and EPCO will identify supplemental data required for the manual to meet user needs and authentication. At the very least, COTS TMs that will be authenticated, will require front and rear matter in accordance with MIL-STD-40051. The most common types of programs that fall into this category are non-developmental Items based off COTS. These systems require modification in order to incorporate military specific requirements for use in an operational environment. These programs often enter at MS B, just prior to Critical Design Review (CDR). Programs in this category may require either a MIL-STD-40051 manual or a mix of both the manufacturer manual and MIL-PRF-32216 supplemental data. These COTS/NDI TMs require early evaluation by the PSM IPT members in order to select the TM development path forward based on the system density, user representative feedback, and the system’s product support strategy. For existing manuals not developed in XML, there is no requirement to request XML source files in the contract. Standard language in the contract will read, “if the manufacturer manual was developed in XML format, the Contractor shall provide XML source files to the government.”

1. TM Incremental Development Timeline and PSM IPT Activities (continued)

Unmodified and Unauthenticated Manufacturer Manuals. AR 25-30, paragraph 3-29, outlines the criteria that are applicable to those ACAT III COTS programs that are not modified in any way, have low density, and are low cost.

These program types are strictly COTS programs where no modification to the equipment is required. The system can be procured commercially and the OEM manual can be used to operate and maintain the system.

Manufacturer manuals identified for these specific ACAT III programs require evaluation to determine whether they meet the safety (“System Safety Review”) and technical content (“Instructional Gaps”) needs of the soldiers.

Manufacturer’s manuals for these programs will not be modified and will not be government validated, verified, authenticated or posted to LOGSA’s website. Technical writers will not process the manuals through the EPCO, LOGSA or APD. As the total life cycle manager (TLCM), the PM is responsible for printing and distributing the manuals and for managing updates or changes to the manuals over the system life cycle. These programs often enter at MS C and can be procured rapidly.

Outliers: The use of the policy above as right and left boundaries allow the PSM IPT flexibility to tailor TM development, within those boundaries, in order to align with the unique requirements of the individual program and the program’s product support strategy. Some programs may not fall neatly into one category. For example, if the program is a modified COTS system with low density, contractor logistics supported, and not provisioned using LMP, even though it is a modified COTS TM, it may not require a verification, validation and authentication.

Likewise, a system could technically be a COTS system, however, has high density, is high dollar value, and will be provisioned using LMP; therefore, paragraph 3-29 will not apply. The key is early discussions with the user representative, technical writer, and the EPCO, in order to determine an appropriate path forward.

Once the PSM, user representative, technical writer, and EPCO, determine the manual type, this will drive the TM development process and the roles and responsibilities of the PSM IPT members. For example, for unauthenticated COTS manuals, the EPCO will not participate in the contract development, review, verification or authentication of the manuals. For all other development, both authenticated COTS and in-house TMs, the technical writer will coordinate updates and changes with the OEM and serve as a key member of the PSM IPT to support successful validation, verification and authentication of the TM.

Step Two: Document the TM development strategy within the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP). Establish the PSM IPT and begin to draft the contract language tailored to the specific TM development strategy (MIL-STD, authenticated COTS TM, or manufacturer manual).

*The figures and table on the following pages are the visual representation of this Guidebook.

Table 1 on page 9 is the list of PSM IPT members

Figure 1 on page 10 depicts a visual guide for the 30 percent, 70 percent, and 100 percent TM contract incremental deliverable review phases and events timeline. This is a baseline guide and can be used to tailor to the individual program’s unique needs and schedule.

Figure 2 on page 11 depicts a visual guide for the PSM IPT incremental review process and timelines. Timelines are a guide and PMs are encouraged to tailor the review timelines to meet program needs. The goal is to ensure the PSM IPT has enough time to review the deliverables in order to address issues of quality, accuracy, and usability.

Larger, more complex programs may require a longer review. Smaller and less complex programs may require a shorter review period. The concept is applicable to all programs.

Figure 3 on page 1 depicts a visual guide for the incremental contract deliverable review phases and process unique to a rapid development COTs/NDI program.

The below table is an example of the key members of the PSM IPT. PSMs on Acquisition Category (ACAT) II and III programs where staff levels are light are encouraged to coordinate with the Program Executive Officer (PEO) G4 and LCMC to “borrow” SMEs from other programs where staff levels exist and team members have availability.

The full PSM IPT may not be required for those programs whose manuals will not be verified, validated or authenticated.

(Team Name POC Team Membership (by Function or Organization)

Team Role, Responsibility, and Authority

Products & Metrics

PSM

Supportability IPT

& Quality Assurance (QA) Team

Contract Development and QA process for Technical Manual

Development

Products:

Technical Manual Development

PSA, LPD, -10, -13&P TM, MAC,

RPSTL

Chair Mr. John Smith PM X Product Support Manager

Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Validated & Verified TM, PSA and

LPD

PM X Lead Engineer Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

PM X Lead Logistician Contract dev. & QA for all

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

PM or CERDEC Maintenance Engineer

Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

LCMC ILSC or PM Lead Technical writer

Contract dev. & QA for all

Authenticated TM

LCMC ILSC Provisioner Contract dev & QA LPD & LSA &

TM

NSNs LMP and DLA

OEM Contract execution/Developer/QA TM development

LCMC ILSC Equipment Specialist

QA for TM deliverables

TM QA

LCMC ILSC EPCO Rep TM Strategy, contract dev./ QA review

TM Concurrence

LCMC ILSC Item Manager

QA LPD LSA and TM deliverables

Provisioning, NSNs, RPSTL

*TRADOC ILS and SID POC QA TM deliverables

Concurrence Sheets

ATEC Feedback on TIRs, Independent Evaluator for suitability

Suitability Statement

LDAC Rep/Ad Hoc SME TM and LPD/Ad Hoc Member

Validated & Verified TM

*CCDC/Depot Rep/Ad Hoc QA PSA and LPD Data Input & Review/Ad Hoc

PSA & LPD review

Table 1: PSM IPT Members

*Note—TRADOC encompasses CASCOM SID and ILS branches as well as the individual TCMs. For intelligence systems, Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Directorate of Doctrine and Intelligence Systems Training (DDIST) and Tactical Fusion Division signs off on TM concurrence sheets, for DCGS-A, etc. *CCDC = Combat Capabilities Commands.

PART I TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE AND QUALITY REVIEW

PROCESS

2. PSM IPT Quality Review Process

How Does the PSM IPT Review the TM and LPD?

The PSM, his/her lead logistician, technical writer and the program’s lead systems engineer will need to ensure the TM deliverables line up with the drawing package. This cannot be accomplished accurately without the participation of the system engineer.

PSM IPT 30 percent, 70 percent and 100 percent Step by Step Review:

1. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) sends the deliverable to the PSM in line with the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and contract deliverable schedule. The PSM establishes a review IPT.

2. Each member of the PSM IPT will take a copy of the deliverable and review it.

3. The lead logistician, systems/program engineer and technical writer, will check the complete deliverable for accuracy and usability, as written, against the drawing packages to include schematics, figures, etc.

4. The PSM IPT technical writer and EPCO office will use Interactive Authoring Display Software (IADS) to vet formatting issues

(diagrams, schematics, work package development, formatting, etc.) and insert redline comments as necessary.

5. The Provisioner will coordinate with the PM logistician, equipment specialist, technical writer and engineers as well as LCMC engineers to review the LPD data for accuracy and completeness.

6. The TRADOC/CASCOM SID and ILS team members will evaluate the TM for overall accuracy, content usability as written, diagrams, schematics, etc. (Note—NETCOM Directorate of Doctrine and Intelligence Systems Training (DDIST) supports Intelligence Systems Training and TM Verification).

7. The PSM supported by the technical writer will ensure the deliverable comments are consolidated and submitted back to the COR for Contractor review and incorporation.

8. The PSM IPT will hold a discussion via teleconference call with the OEM and PSM IPT to discuss comments and redlines and provide clarification, as needed. (This process is repeated at the 70 percent, and 100 percent reviews and as needed over the TM development cycle).

CONTENT — PSM IPT reviews should not be subjective. They need to be objective. Content requirements:

1. Simple, concise, easy to read instructions with as few words as possible.

2. Must line up with the drawings, schematics, and diagrams.

3. Must be useable, as written. If the user can perform the task, as written, this meets the requirement.

FORMAT — using the IADS tool, formatting and quality deficiencies are easily identifiable by the Contractor as well as the government POCs reviewing in IADS. Use of IADS will greatly increase the ability for the PSM IPT to conduct quality checks on formatting.

When feasible, it is highly recommended that the PSM IPT members have access to test sets in order to compare the skeleton TM instructions and drawings against the system hardware and software.

*NOTE—It is highly recommended that the PMO /PSM consider purchasing a logistics test asset for the purpose of the Contractor and PSM IPT use during TM quality reviews and checks. This decreases risk to the verification as the instructions can be hands-on reviewed for accuracy and usability, rather than just desktop reviewed. If that is not feasible, this quality review process will still reduce risk and cost to the government.

PSM=

Participative Leader

But….

It takes a TEAM

LOGISTICS Test assets are KEY to review process

3. COTs/NDI: 6 -12 Month Development Timeline

During a rapid acquisition, the team is working simultaneous actions and due to the COTS/NDI nature of a program, things change frequently and rapidly. The RPSTL will be continually updated throughout development and over the life cycle, therefore, flexibility is key.

The government will provide the contractor TM requirements, key program events and the First Unit Equipping (FUE) date. The OEM must determine how to develop TMs to meet Program IMS events and FUE deadline.

This expedited timeline reflects:

• MS C and 30 days after award (DAW) – Post award guidance conference - receive 30% deliverable (initial draft Work Package and TM outline) initial family tree, MAC, data for FMECA, data for LORA

• CDR – Occurs between 30% and 70% deliverables

• 70% = Final MAC and final family tree

• Shell Part Number RPSTL, Routing Identification Code (RIC) parts identified and assigned, B16, AKZ, etc.), Provisioning Conference

• 100% = Validation just after Provisioning Conference

• Verification = 30 days prior to fielding – pursue conditional/full materiel release (CMR or FMR) which ever applies.

• FUE at validation exercise/new equipment training (VALEX/NET) – train FUE Soldiers, hand receipt equipment.

Unit uses for 2-4 weeks and PM trainers and testers on site document any deficiencies. Deficiencies are incorporated into the FRC TM. (This is a Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) unique process, your program may vary – but this gives an idea of how quickly things work in a rapid COTs/NDI program).

• FRC = 30 days after fielding.

• PCA after FUE/VALEX/NET – finalized RPSTL NSNs identified and assigned. Program baseline finalized.

Afterwards Maintainability Evaluation (ME) – Soldier must first be trained and the TM verified. ME only applicable if one of the three criteria outlined in figure 1 exists. Otherwise, no ME required.

• Fielding 12 months – Fielding date drives contractor IMS – work backwards from Fielding to 30 DAW to develop your schedule based on events (see above).

COTS/RAPID DEVEOPMENT Suitability at Operational Test Example —Secure Wireless Operational Test (integration with Command Post of the Future, CPOF). Product Manager (PdM) Network Enablers (NE) conducted a risk reduction test event. PdM NE utilized the CPOF TEMP and integrated that into the Secure Wireless Test Plan which allowed for a live test event with the fielding unit at FUE in order to conduct Operational Test with target audience Soldiers. This allowed PdM NE to prove out the secure wireless suitability and interoperability.

*Note—For those programs that only require an Operator Manual — The PSM IPT and applicable user MOS will evaluate the Operator manual to determine if it is suitable or requires supplementation. The Operator MOS will also verify the TM, as written, allows for Operator tasks to be completed. Operator manuals do not require a FMECA being there are no Maintenance tasks associated with Operator manuals.

Consolidation of efforts and tailoring = efficiency

PART II FRAMING TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT

EARLY SCHOOLHOUSE INVOLVEMENT

1. Schoolhouse Familiarization:

Prior to the OEM developing the initial work packages, PSM IPT members can familiarize themselves with the Program of Instruction (POI) for both the operator and maintainers. For maintenance manuals, the PSM IPT can ensure they influence TM development to synchronize with what is being trained at the schoolhouse. PSM IPT members can locate the Program of Instruction (POI) for all Military Occupational Specialty’s (MOS) at the below database (system access request required):

https://cascom.tradoc.army.mil/sites/g3/td/od/SitePages/Home.aspx

It is recommended that Program Managers (PM)s download the approved MOS Critical Task List (CTL) and share this information with the OEMs early during development to familiarize them with Soldier skills and assist in development of Maintenance Task Analysis. PMs can utilize the database to build their own Library of MOS CTLs and POI.

User representatives from the TCM and CASCOM SID will advise the PSM IPT on any new skills or MOS based on review of the MTA and CTL for new equipment training (NET) delivered by the OEM. CASCOM reviews and updates the CTL every three years based on information from the Field Problem Review Board (FPRB) for fielded systems and Instructor and Key Personnel Training (IKPT) for new weapon systems. PSMs should work closely with TRADOC representatives to ensure that OEMs consider skills taught in MOS schools when developing the MTA that will build the TM.

2. What is Product Support Analysis (PSA) and Logistics Product Data (LPD)?

The LPD required for a program is tied to the maintenance structure of the weapon system. Army Policy mandates a two level maintenance structure which consists of field level and sustainment (Depot) level maintenance. LPD is a product of various product support analyses conducted during each Milestone Phase. Reliability and maintainability data are pulled off the failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA). Functional analysis such as the maintenance task analysis (MTA) help determine the preventive and corrective maintenance actions and required spares and support equipment. MTA also determine MOS and the time intervals required for such repair activities. There are several analyses required to develop the structure.

The relationship of the PSA and the LPD output, for purposes of maintenance planning, are generally as follows:

• FMECA (SAE TA-STD-0017, Activity 9.5) identifies potential design weaknesses through systematic documented consideration of all likely ways in which a component or equipment can fail, the causes for each failure mode, and the effects of each failure.

• Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) (SAE TA- STD-0017, Activity 9.7) identifies preventive or scheduled maintenance tasks for an equipment end item in accordance with a specified set of procedures and establishes intervals between maintenance tasks.

• Task analysis (SAE TA-STD-0017, Activity 12), analyzes required operations and maintenance tasks for the new system/equipment; reliability program identifies the frequency of failures. Maintainability program identifies the elapsed time to correct a failure; the maintenance task frequency identifies maintenance intervals and validates the maintenance task relevance.

• The Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) identifies the recommended maintenance levels and support costs associated with unscheduled maintenance tasks (LORA Handbook, January 2015).

PSA and

LPD =

Foundation of the TM

What is the Schoolhouse teaching? This will inform and guide TM development https://cascom.tradoc.army.mil/sites/g3/td/od/SitePages/Home.aspx

PSA and LPD continued

PSA and LPD feed into the development of TMs and Provisioning data that support user preventive maintenance checks and services (PMCS), the maintenance allocation chart (MAC), the repair parts and special tools list (RPSTL) as well as support assignment of national stock numbers (NSNs) in order to enable the user to requisition replacement parts through the Logistics Modernization Program (LMP). Examples of analyses and associated LPD are:

• FMECA results

• Bill of Material (BOM)

• Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

• MTA results

• Preliminary Maintenance Allocation Chart (PMAC)

• MAC

• RPSTL

• PMCS

• Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP)

• Provisioning Screening

• LORA results

• Design Change Notification (DCN)

For more information on LPD please see the Logistics Product Data Handbook, GEIA-HB-0007 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/geiahb0007b/

The PM, PSM, systems engineer, maintenance engineer, logistician, technical writer and provisioner will coordinate to determine the level and type of LPD required for each program. Standard LPD required to develop TMs and Provisioning consistent with Army programs are; FMECA, LORA, BOM, MAC, EDFP, MTA, Screening Data, RPSTLs, and DCNs. Details on contracting methodologies for LPD are located in appendix B of this guidebook. See table 2 on page 19 for PSA and LPD relationships.

* Note—DoD Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) Guide and MIL-HDBK-470A (Designing and Developing Maintainable Products and Systems) are the recommended guides for establishing a maintainability program and tailoring to support the requirements for the system to ensure the analysis applies to the type of program (i.e., developmental, COTs/NDI, or modification) as well as drives the technical manual development for the individual program. The DoD RAM guide can be found at http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD%20Reliability%20Availability%20and%20Maintainability%20(RAM)% 20Guide.pdf MIL-HDBK-470A is located at http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/geiahb0007b/ http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD%20Reliability%20Availability%20and%20Maintainability%20(RAM)%20Guide.pdf http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD%20Reliability%20Availability%20and%20Maintainability%20(RAM)%20Guide.pdf http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

2.1 Product Support Analysis

2.1.1 How Does the FMECA Influence TM Development?

The FMECA identifies the critical tasks required to be demonstrated during TM verification. The FMEA (referred to as a failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis, or FMECA, when the criticality of failures is also determined) systematically identifies the likely modes of failure and the possible effects of each failure on mission completion (MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis). The FMECA addresses the same features as the FMEA; however, the FMECA additionally addresses the criticality of each effect on mission completion, environmental impacts, health hazards, and system safety (MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis). FMECA is also a regulatory requirement per DOD

5000.02. Further, the FMECA provides key inputs into the MTA and LORA, which feeds the MAC then ties into the RPSTL. Per MIL-HBK-470A traditionally, the FMEA has been used as a reliability analysis and design tool. However, the results of an FMEA are also a key input to the design for maintainability. The FMEA helps establish the necessary maintainability design characteristics based on potential failure modes and their effects on subsystems, equipment, and product operation. The results of the FMEA are used to determine placement and nature of test points, to develop troubleshooting schemes, to establish design characteristics relative to the ease of maintenance, and to develop fault detection and isolation strategies. Below are the outputs of the FMECA:

• Determining the effect of each failure mode on performance

• Root cause identification and development of corrective actions

• Investigation of design alternatives

• Development of test methods and troubleshooting techniques

• Qualitative reliability and maintainability analyses

• Locating single point failures

• Providing data for developing the Reliability Block Diagram and Fault Tree Analysis

• Qualitative safety and supportability analyses

• Ranking failure according to severity classification

• Estimating system critical failure rates

• Identifying reliability and safety critical components.

• Assisting PSM IPT to identify maintenance tasks to select during the Critical Task List selection

Failure analysis identifies the failures that will occur on the equipment. If the failure cannot be designed out, mitigation of the risk is necessary through preventive and corrective maintenance procedures. These procedures are written into technical manuals. During system design the FMECA is a living document. (See sample FMECA Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) in appendix B. This CDRL requests data required for the government to conduct FMECA and manage the living FMECA over the life cycle with OEM provided data).

For more information on the FMECA please see MIL-HDBK-470A and MIL-HBK-502A at https://www.assist.dla.mil

FMECA identifies critical tasks to be demonstrated during TM Verification

Reliability, criticality, environmental, safety, design influence, task and interval identification https://www.assist.dla.mil/

2.1.2. How Does the LORA Influence TM Development?

The LORA is an analytical methodology used to assist in developing maintenance concepts, influencing design, and establishing the maintenance level at which components will be replaced, repaired, or discarded based on constraints obtained through economic, noneconomic, and sensitivity evaluations, as well as operational readiness requirements.

What is the Purpose of the LORA?

The LORA process involves a group of three systematic and comprehensive evaluations (i.e., economic, noneconomic, and sensitivity evaluations), that when conducted on an iterative basis throughout all phases of the system/equipment life cycle, arrive at level of repair/discard alternatives that satisfy sustainment objectives.

Through these iterative evaluation processes, a maintenance and support concept for the system/equipment which is effective, yet economical, can be established. This is often accomplished by influencing the system’s design for supportability. (Defense Acquisition University website).

The maintainability analysis task translates data into a detailed maintainability design approach to achieve the system Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) requirements. LORA plays a vital role in maintainability analysis in that it evaluates the maintainability design alternatives. Also, LORA uses the MTTR data as input for evaluating repair level or discard decisions to meet the overall subsystem and component availabilities and constraints. (Defense Acquisition University Website).

The initial LORA is based off data from like systems and becomes the system baseline. As the system development matures and FMECA and RCM data analysis are conducted, the LORA, which uses the failure rates determined in reliability prediction, becomes more accurate and detailed. In conducting LORA, the FMECA is used to provide a candidate list of items that are critical to reliability and will affect readiness. The LORA analyzes the reliability critical items to determine whether they are maintenance significant. The LORA informs the MAC.

The Computerized Optimization Model for Predicting and Analyzing Support Structures (COMPASS) is the official tool approved by the Army for performing LORAs per AR 700-127.

Contracting for the LORA

Due to the importance of the LORA in the development of the TM and the LORA being a government unique output, It is highly recommended PMs only contract for the data required to develop the LORA, in order to ensure quality and reduce cost. The Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) CERDEC hosts a LORA training program. The training team will provide guidance on what information the PM needs to request of the OEM. The PSM needs to ensure guidance is provided to the OEM during the post award guidance conference in order to clarify the requirements to the OEM and ensure the government receives accurate data required to conduct the LORA. It is recommended that PMOs send their logisticians and maintenance engineers to the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) Communication Electronics Research and Development Center (CERDEC) LORA training class in order to understand what data is required, how to conduct analysis within COMPASS, and how to conduct the economic analysis for the LORA. This data is then used to develop the Business Case Analysis (BCA) or Analysis of Product Support Alternatives (APSA). Procuring the data allows the PM to update the LORA over the life cycle without having to fund the OEM for the actual LORA and associated reports. For larger programs, the training program can assist in learning how to conduct component level LORAs and then use the data to help tie the complete system LORA together in order to obtain accurate system costing estimates. For further assistance with the LORA, please send an email to: usarmy.apg.rdecom-cerdec.mbx.cerdec-prd-sse-division@mail.mil *See appendix B for the sample LORA CDRL.

LORA feeds the Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) mailto:usarmy.apg.rdecom-cerdec.mbx.cerdec-prd-sse-division@mail.mil

PSA STD/HDBK Activity Description Product/LPD

FMECA SAE-TA-STD-0017 9.5 Identifies potential design weaknesses through systematic documented consideration of all likely ways in which a component or equipment can fail, the causes for each failure mode, and the effects of each failure

CTL for TM verification;

PMCS

RCM SAE-TA-STD-0017 9.7 Identifies preventive or scheduled maintenance tasks for an equipment end item in accordance with a specified set of procedures and establishes intervals between maintenance tasks; task analysis

MMR, Functional Failures, PMCS

LORA SAE-TA-STD-0017

SAE AS 1390

11.7 Identifies the recommended maintenance levels and

support costs associated with unscheduled maintenance tasks

MAC

MTA SAE-TA-STD-0017 12 Analyzes required operations and maintenance tasks for the new system/equipment; reliability program identifies the frequency of failures; maintainability program identifies the elapsed time to correct a failure; the maintenance task frequency identifies maintenance intervals and validates the maintenance task relevance

MARC, CTL,

(Marc data feeds the basis of issue plan feeder data)

LSAR SAE-TA-STD-0017

and SAE GEIA HB 0007-1

12.9 Identifies appropriate part, configuration status, and

parts sources based on provisioning data submitted for screening.

PPL, EDFP,

RPSTL, BOM

Table II: PSA Standards and Relationships

3. Logistics Products Definitions

The following is a list of outputs from the product support analysis process. These products assist in the development of the technical manual and are contracted for, delivered (as required), and approved prior to the initial TM delivery. (See SAE TA-HB-0007-1 for more detailed guidance on this process and the complete list of Logistics Support Analysis (LSA).

PMAC

The PMAC is an early list of equipment maintenance functions showing the maintenance level at which each maintenance task will likely be authorized. The PMAC is used to provide design feedback for Human Systems Integration, safety, and system engineering. The PMAC is an estimate based on early design and knowns. The PMAC is required during the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase. The PMAC report is the LSA-004.

MAC

Similar to the PMAC, the MAC is the FINAL list of equipment maintenance functions showing the maintenance level at which each maintenance task is authorized. The MAC documents the details of a system's maintenance plan. It is a list of equipment maintenance functions showing the maintenance level for the performance of maintenance functions on an identified end item or component. The MAC report is the LSA-004.

RPSTL

The RPSTL lists spares and repair parts; special tools, special test, measurement, and diagnostic equipment (TMDE), and other special support equipment required for performance of organizational maintenance. It authorizes the requisitioning and issue of spares, repair parts and special tools as indicated by the source and maintenance codes. The RPSTL report is the LSA-030.

PMCS

Preventive maintenance checks and services are the care, servicing, inspection, detection, and correction of minor faults before these faults cause serious damage, failure, or injury.

EDFP

EDFP is the engineering data used in the initial provisioning of support resources. This technical data provides definitive identification of dimensional, materiel, mechanical, electrical, or other characteristics adequate for provisioning of the support items of the end item on contract. It encompasses the complete drawing and part information associated with cataloging the parts.

Provisioning Screening

Provisioning is the process of determining and acquiring the range and quantity (depth) of spares and repair parts, and support and test equipment required to operate and maintain an end item of material for an initial period of service. Usually refers to first outfitting of a ship, unit, or system. The screening process requires input of the parts data, including EDFP, in order to catalog the parts into the supply chain system. The screening report is the LSA- 032 report.

PART III TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ACQUISITION FRAMEWORK

1. Milestone A (MS A) and Technology Maturation Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase – The purpose of this phase is to develop competitive prototypes in order to affect risk reduction while ensuring technology advancements are developed in a way that maintains intuitive user interfaces and reduces overall logistics footprint and life-cycle costs. Maintainability Assessment incorporates user input into the design, which also influences the complexity and length of the TM.

Technical Manual at MS A & TMRR— During these phases, the technical manual will be in a skeletal format with basic operator and maintainer instructions required for testers to work with the equipment. Test Incident Reports (TIRs) are provided against any deficiencies identified in the instructions. OEMs are required to update the TMs to incorporate all TIR findings that affect accuracy and usability of the operator and maintainer instructions. This TIR data is required to be documented within the skeletal format of the operator/maintainer instructions to feed the development of the TM which will be further developed to the MIL-STD in MS B when the system has a stable design. Stable design for TM development is just prior to Critical Design Review (CDR).

FMECA - The purpose of the FMECA during TMRR is to influence the design interfaces and human systems interface (HSI) engineering before the design is stable. This ensures the PM incorporates soldier feedback and HSI into the development of the end item. Soldiers need to have input into the design interface of the end item during the development of prototypes prior to down-select to influence reduction of maintenance tasks, ensure maintenance tasks are simple, use common tools, are intuitive to the user, and incorporate simple user interfaces for both hardware and software.

MS A Prototypes Reduce Risk

Key Events:

FMECA, Design

Interface, Maintainability, Skelton Technical

PART III TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LIFE CYCLE PHASES

TMRR Phase continued:

Special Tools:

Special tools directly affect the development of TM maintenance tasks as well as increased logistics footprint and training requirements for the Army. The government needs to ensure the Contractor designs the system to use the Army approved tool kits listed on the Army Enterprise Systems Integration Program (AESIP) website to perform maintenance tasks. The Contractor shall ensure all tasks can be used with the approved tool kits to reduce the logistics footprint to the government. Tools that fall outside of the inventory of government tool kits are referred to as special tools. The government needs to ensure the contractor limits the introduction of special tools to the maximum extent through system design using soldier feedback and (HSI). For a comprehensive list of government, approved tool kits/sets please see https://www.aesip.army.mil/irj/portal. PM Sets Kits and Outfits (SKOT) and PD Test Measurement Diagnostics and Evaluation (TMDE) update the website twice per year. (Users are required to fill out a system access request in order to gain access to AESIP).

As it applies to tools, Contractors and soldiers (user reps) can do a crosswalk from Contractor tools to the Army’s standard tool kits to identify those areas where special tools may be swapped out for common tools and influence the MAC which feeds the RPSTL.

2. Milestone B (MS B) and Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase – It is ideal that a program being brought into Milestone B will have incorporated soldier feedback and maintainability into the design, thus decreasing the amount and complexity of maintenance tasks and man-hours required to conduct PMCS and/or repair actions, which in-turn decreases the length and complexity of TMs and Training.

Technical Manual at MS B — During Milestone B, the TMs are a skeleton format to include basic diagrams and instructions written to the Prototype. During the testing phase there may be Engineering Change Proposals (ECP)s incorporated into the end item hardware and software that will further inform the instructions for operator and maintainer manuals. TIRs are documented throughout the testing process. During MS B the contract should ensure that the OEM will be required to incorporate the TIRs into the future TM deliverables. As the system nears closer to a stabilized design, this is when the OEM and PSM IPT will begin to coordinate the review of TM deliverables. Note— the engineer, PSM, lead logistician and technical writer need to have coordinated with the OEM during MSA, TMRR, and EMD phases to ensure the TIRs and skeleton TM is aligned with system drawings.

FMECA — After prototype down-select then entering into the EMD phase early in MS B, the purpose of the FMECA is to further refine the design interfaces and evaluate HSI. Consider the design from a user perspective to ensure any ECPs or design changes incorporated enable system maintenance to remain intuitive, maintenance tasks are reduced and streamlined, use common tools, and simple interfaces for both hardware and software (e.g., the user does not have to remove or tear down large components to fix a component, etc.). The design during this phase will be reasonably stable. Once the design is close to being stable, this is when the TM work package development can be ramped up. FMECA deliveries are also subject to the PSM IPT review, quality assurance, acceptance or rejection process and are considered as part of the LPD package.

Prototypes incorporate…