DateBriefer’s Name
Briefer’s Org CodeBriefer’s Phone #
Briefer’s Email
Programlogohere
Program Executive OfficeCommand, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I)
Revised Sample Brief Template v2
Sample: Statement D: Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DOD) and U. S. DOD contractors only. Other requests must be referred to PEO C4I or the SPAWAR Office of Congressional and Public Affairs (SPAWAR 00P).
2
Programlogohere
Key Stakeholders
Name Organization
APM
MDA
DT Coordinator
COMOPTEVFOR (OTD)
COMOPTEVFOR (OTC)
CNO (N912)
CNO (N-sponsor)
JITC
DOT&E (if required)
Others (as required)
-PMW, SYSCOMS, Service
5
Programlogohere
Program Overview
• ACAT
• Program Phase
• Milestone or Decision that this phase of test will support
• Mission
• Inventory Objective (quantities)
6
Programlogohere
ADM Exit Criteria andAction Item Status
R Required at this time, but not completed
G Completed
Y In progress & on schedule
Program Information StatusApproved
DateComments
ADM Exit Criteria
ADM Exit Criteria 1
ADM Exit Criteria 2
ADM Exit Criteria N
Action Items
Action Items 1
Action Items 2
Action Items N
10
Programlogohere
Deployed/MobileUnits
BASE
IMAFISC
PierConnections
CLINIC
TRNG CENHQ
TELEPORT/STEPLong Haul (DISN & Commercial)
TRAININGCENTER
USN/USMCLOGISTIC BASE
NAVALAMPHIBIOUS
BASE
NOC
BASE
MC AIRSTATION
End-to-End Connectivity
NMCI atthe Pier
Development StrategyEnd-to-End Capability
13
Programlogohere
Acquisition Coordination Team (ACT)• The following (Program Name) ACT members have been briefed on the program status and concur with the fielding of (Program Name).
Functional Area Name Organization Telephone EmailProgram Manager VariesAcquisition PM VariesProject Engineer VariesResource Sponsor VariesRequirements Sponsor VariesContracts Mr. David Ryan SPAWAR 02 (858) 537-0314 [email protected]
Contracts Mr. Mark Lopez SPAWAR 02 (619) 524-7168 [email protected]
Contracts Ms. Marcia Rutledge SPAWAR 02 (619) 524-7201 [email protected]
Legal Laura Larkin SPAWAR 00C-1 (619) 524-7060 [email protected]
Operational Test Director VariesAcquisition Management John Metzger PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7652 [email protected]
Technical Director Charlie Suggs PEO C4I-TD (619) 524-7237 [email protected]
T&E Manager John Hartford PEO C4I-AM (858) 537-0410 [email protected]
T&E Requirements Coordinator LCDR Jason Small OPNAV, N912C3 (703) 601-1733 [email protected]
PEO Installations Susan Senese PEO C4I (858) 537-0620 [email protected]
Fleet Modernization Ruth Youngs Lew PEO C4I (858) 537-0613 [email protected]
PEO Logistics Sean Zion PEO C4I (858) 537-0253 [email protected]
Manpower and Budget/ Susie Drew/Program BFM Program BFMManpower and Budget Christa LeBoeuf PEO C4I (619) 524-7599 [email protected]
Comptroller Gregory Hansford SPAWAR 01 (619) 524-7139 [email protected]
Cost Analysis Mourad Yacoub SPAWAR 01-6 (619) 524-7160 [email protected]
Command Information Officer Jacqueline Todd SPAWAR 08 (619) 524-7063 [email protected]
Command Information Office Organizational Mailbox SPAWAR 08 N/A [email protected]
Counterintelligence Kurt Fabrizio SPAWAR 00-NCIS (619) 524-7152 [email protected]
Counterintelligence Todd Grantham SPAWAR 00-NCIS (619) 524-7446 [email protected]
SPAWAR/NFESC
System Security/Information Assurance
Paul Schoberg PEO C4I (619) 524-7341 [email protected]
Spectrum Management Dave Southworth SPAWAR (619) 553-3248 [email protected]
Interoperability Certification/
Information Support PlansManpower Analysis Janet Garrington SPAWAR 04H (858) 537-8950 [email protected]
Security Pat Varney SPAWAR 08 (858) 537 8898 [email protected]
Human Systems Integration Carol Robinson SPAWAR 05-5 (858) 537-8907 [email protected]
C4I Technical Authority Dave Murray SPAWAR 05-TA (858) 537-0212 [email protected]
C4I Technical Authority Support Staff
Samantha Bodley SPAWAR 05-TA (858) 537-8885 [email protected]
Roger Renner PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7840 [email protected]
Mark McLain PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7748 [email protected]
Jamie Roth PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7880 [email protected]
Jakob McLean PEO C4I-AM (858) 537-0367 [email protected]
AMO Support Staff
CAPT Steve McPhillips
PEO C4I (619) 524-7182 [email protected]
PEO C4I (619) 524-7359 [email protected]
Env., Safety and Health Jerry Olen (858) 537-0255 [email protected]
14
Programlogohere
Program Information and Documentation Status
R Required at this time, but does not exist B Requires development or updating w/in 12 months
O Required at this time and under development/update G Current, with all required approvals
Y In approval cycle. Expected Date in Comments NR Not required. Rationale in Comments
Program Information StatusApproved
DatePlanned
DateComments
ACAT Designation LetterAcquisition Decision MemorandumAcquisition Program BaselineAcquisition StrategyAffordability AssessmentAnalysis of AlternativesCAIV Objectives CDD/CPDClinger-Cohen ComplianceEnv. Safety & Health EvaluationEVMIA StrategyInformation Support Plan (ISP)InfoSec Certification and AccreditationInitial Capabilities DocumentJITC Interoperability CertificationLCCE/Economic Analysis/ICEIndependent Logistics AssessmentLow Rate Initial Prod (LRIP) DecisionNavy Training System Plan (NTSP)OP Test PlanPost-Deployment Performance ReviewProgram Protection PlanRisk Assessment Safe for Test CertificationTechnology Development Strategy (TDS)Test & Evaluation Master PlanTest Results (DT&E/OT&E/FOT&E)
15
Programlogohere
[insert program name]Program Overview Chart
DATE OF REPORT: MM/DD/YYYY
PM / Sponsor Cost Schedule PerformanceProgrammaticCompliance
LogisticsContract
Execution
Contact Info hereContact Info here
Description:Program Start Date: MM / YY[Insert program description here]
Joint or International:[Insert joint or International details]
Key Performance ParametersKPP Objective Threshold DemoOP Avail .90 .90 .98S/W Reliability 200 hrs 200 hrs 1000 hrsS/W Mean 5 sec 5 sec 3.2 secxxxx x x x
Acquisition ObjectivesQuantity 650IOC 12 / 99Target Price (unit) $Various$M (FY XX) $610.12
Contractor DataContractor Litton DSDValue / Type $NA / GSAStart / Complete APR97 / APR03
Contractor XXXValue / Type $XX / XXXStart / Complete XXX / XXX
Cost Data ($ in M)*Cost Objective Threshold Current Est.R&D 0 0 0Proc 300.3 300.3 380O&S 250.5 250.5 276.1xxxx x x x
* Values from last approved APB
(IT) ACAT Level:MDA:
Budget Source:
OverallVolatility
Contract Execution Ratings:G= CPI/SPI .95 or >Y= CPI/SPI .85 -.94R = CPI/SPI < .85
APPR $M Subhead Project Total PY CY BY BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4 To Complete TotalRDT&E,N - OPN,P - Qty - OPN, I - Qty - OMN - Spares - SCN - OCF - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
OSD T&E Oversight: Y/N
SCHEDULEFY by QuartersMilestones
TestingDevelopmentProductionInstallation
R&D / Studies
FY 00I II III IV
FY 01I II III IV
FY 02I II III IV
FY 03I II III IV
FY 04I II III IV
FY 05I II III IV
FY 06I II III IV
FY 07I II III IV
201
CDR
3 3
SVR
MS IIIDMS-IIB&C
FOT&E
LRIP
OPEVAL
5
IOC MSD FOC
Microsoft Word Document
16
Programlogohere
Insert Program Name: ADNSCurrent FY: XXXX
INC II Budget:(Most Current Budget) * See Note 1Then-Year $K
APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete TotalRDT&E 428 200 - - - - - 628 OPN 21,128 17,091 12,500 3,691 - - - 54,410 OMN 1,461 3,692 4,913 5,392 5,141 4,760 3,551 28,910
Total 23,017 20,983 17,413 9,083 5,141 4,760 3,551 83,948
QTY Inc II Procurement 38/4 38 9 11 100 QTY Inc II Installation 9/4 53 23 11 100
* See Note 2Then-Year $K
APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete Total
RDT&E 428 200 - - - - 628
OPN 20,673 19,373 11,403 4,494 - - - 55,943 OMN 1,461 3,692 4,913 5,392 5,141 4,760 3,551 28,910
Total 22,562 23,265 16,316 9,886 5,141 4,760 3,551 85,481
DELTA (Budget Minus LCCE Feb-05)Then-Year $K
APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete TotalRDT&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - OPN 455 (2,282) 1,097 (803) 0 0 0 (1,533) OMN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Total 455 (2,282) 1,097 (803) 0 0 0 (1,533)
Affordability by Increment
Notes
1. FY05 includes 11 LRIP systems and 27 Increment II Upgrade Kits which are on CODE B hold pending FRP
2. Target Inventory Objective of 110 systems
* Current procurement and install schedule includes 96 ships and 4 shore sites
* Remaining 10 systems planned for FY09 not shown in table, Program direction expects INC III installation to begin and INC II to end in FY09
17
ProgramlogohereSPAWAR 01-6 Cost Risk
Rating RISK
1.0-2.0 LOW
>2.0-3.0 MODERATE
>3.0-4.0 HIGH
>4.0-5.0 VERY HIGH
Cost-Weighted RatingRating Methods Rating Data
1 The basic method used to perform this analysis is exceptionally well documented and time tested; one or more other techniques have been used to verify the estimate provided.
1 Very complete, well-authenticated, highly relevant data, such as recent contractor actual costs, official catalog prices, etc. have been used.
2 The basic method used to perform this analysis is well documented, but no double-check or authentication has been possible.
2 The data used generally are relevant and from a reputable source; however, they are incomplete, preliminary, or not completely current.
3 The basic method used to perform this analysis has been documented, but has not been widely used or approved.
3 The data used have been obtained from official or standard sources; however, notable inconsistencies, lack of currency, or gaps in data reduce the confidence in the estimate.
4 A highly arbitrary method of analysis has been used.
4 The data used to make the estimate are highly suspect, or doubtful relevance, very sparse in quantity, and characterized by major inconsistencies.
5 The analysis is almost pure guesswork, and little or no confidence can be placed in it.
5 An almost total lack of current, reliable, relevant data makes the cost estimate completely uncertain.
Source: FAA Life Cycle Cost Handbook, 3 June 2002
Two Digit Confidence Index
Two Digit Confidence Index *METHOD. DATA METHOD. DATA
SCORE 1.64 1.48 1.54 1.33
TOTAL LCC PROGRAM COSTS ONLY
* Confidence Index based on weighted averages
19
ProgramlogohereAnalysis of Alternatives
KPP ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
KPP 1
KPP 2
KPP 3
KPP 4
LCC ($TYM)Then Year Millions
$ $ $ $
20
Programlogohere
• Source Documents:– Typical source documents that effect strategy are ICD/CDD/CPD,
AoA, etc.
• Approach: Single Step or Evolutionary – Each increment requires a MS C and if development a MS B.
These could be supported by one CDD containing all capabilities and multiple CPDs supporting each increment of useable capability. Each increment could use the same CDD (revalidated each time) for the MS B and would have a separate CPD for the MS C. This method supports Evolutionary acquisition, the preferred approach. See CJCSI 3170 for other Evolutionary approached
Acquisition Strategy (Requirements and Approach)
21
Programlogohere
Acquisition Strategy (Program Structure)
Concept Decision
Milestone A
RFP Development
Milestone B
Contract Award
Development Test/OA
Milestone C/LRIP Decision
Operational Test
IOC
FRP Decision
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10
22
Programlogohere
Acquisition Strategy (Business Approach)
Current ContractsProgram Product or Service Total Contract ValueCompeted Contract Type Period of Performance Approved AP
Y or N FFP 10/1/03 - 9/30/04 Y or N
New Procurement Actions• Proposed [name of effort] Contract
– Competitive or Sole Source (if sole source provide justification– Contract Type:– Estimated contract value: – Period of Performance:– Acquisition Objectives:– Estimated Contract Award:– Status of Acquisition Plan:
23
Programlogohere
Contractor Name, Contract Number, Contract Type, Short Contract Title
Contract EV Metrics and Performance Projections
YSolvency (Provide
comments in notes page)
PEO and Program Manager/PMS-XXX, Program Acronym, ACAT XX, Date Reported
Microsoft Excel Worksheet
Cost Schedule Variance Trends
($30,000)
($25,000)
($20,000)
($15,000)
($10,000)
($5,000)
$0
$5,000
J-98
J-98
A-98
S-98
O-98
N-98
D-98
J-99
F-99
M-99
A-99
M-99
J-99
J-99
A-99
S-99
O-99
N-99
D-99
J-00
F-00
M-00
A-00
M-00
J-00
J-00
A-00
S-00
O-00
N-00
D-00
Do
lla
rs i
n T
ho
us
an
ds
Cost Variance ($1,460) Sched Variance ($809) Mgmt Reserve $1,968 10% Thresholds PM VAC ($24,000) CONTR VAC ($22,500)
START
COMPLETE
CPI:
SPI:EVM Gold Card
24
ProgramlogohereCPARS/IPARS/Award Fee Matrix
Contractor PM Name/Gov’t PM Name Date of Review: ddmmmyy
Contractor:
Program:
Contract Number:
Item: (CPAR, IPAR or AF) AF CPAR AF AF IPAR CPAR IPAR AF IPAR IPAR IPAR CPAR
Period Ending: (Mmm YY) Jan 02 Apr 02 Jul 02 Jan 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 Sep 03 Dec 03 Mar 04 Apr 04
Months Covered: (NR) 6 12 6 6 3 12 3 6 3 3 3 12
Areas to Evaluate
a. Technical (Quality of Product) EXC EXC EXC EXC
(1) Product Performance VG VG VG VG
(2) Systems Engineering SAT SAT SAT SAT
(3) Software Engineering MARG MARG MARG MARG
(4) Logistics Support/Sustainment UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT
(5) Product Assurance EXC EXC EXC EXC
(6) Other Technical Performance EXC EXC EXC EXC
b. Schedule SAT SAT SAT SAT
c. Cost Control MARG MARG MARG MARG
d. Management UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT
(1) Management Responsiveness EXC EXC EXC EXC
(2) SubContract Management VG VG VG VG
(3) Program Mgmt and Other Mgmt SAT SAT SAT SAT
e. Other Areas MARG MARG MARG MARG
(1) Communications EXC EXC EXC EXC
(2) Support to Government Tests EXC EXC EXC EXC
Award Fee Percentage: 85% 70% 90% 84%
N00000-00-C-0000
Contract Start Date:
Estimated Completion Date:
MMM YY
MMM YY
((Contractor Name))
((Program Name))
25
Programlogohere
LOGISTICS SUPPORT
(Compliance with DoD/SECNAV 5000 series and policy documents)
Logistics Requirement Compliance Exception Notes
Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA)
GREEN/YELLOW/RED Rating?
When completed?
Navy Training System Plan (NTSP)
NTSP completed? Sustainment Training in Place? YES/NO
Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Matl. Shortages (DMSMS)
DMSMS Process/Tool used to ID Obsolescence challenges?
YES/NO
Unique Identification (UID) Policy implementation
DFARS Clause 252.211-7003 in contract/contract mods?
YES/NO
Digital Product and Technical Data
Manuals, Drawings, Illustrations available in approved digital
formats?
YES/NO
Human Systems Integration (HSI)
HSI factors addressed in AS, SEP, and NTSP?
YES/NO
Performance Based Logistics (PBL) implementation
PBL strategy considered and decision documented in BCA?
YES/NO
26
Programlogohere
Program AssessmentInstallation Readiness
Place the assessment rating
icon here. Delete the remaining.
Place the assessment rating
icon here. Delete the remaining.
Afloat ShipClass/Shore System FY QTY APPN
Total Procurement
($)Total Install
($)
ECP/ (EC or FCB)
Install Documentation
StatusAfloat - SCD/ILS
CertShore -
WorkScope/FRCB
System Draw ing
Status ICD or IRD (if applicable)
Certif icationSSIL/P P L Status
DITSCAP Info
IATO/ATO Status
AfloatExample
SystemName FY07 20 OPN 200K 20K 100%
ECP XXX
SCD Phase I - ApprovedILS Cert - Approved Approved
IATOApproved None
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
ShoreExample
SystemName FY07 10 80%
Workscope - CompletedFRCB - Approved Approved
ATOApproved None
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Fielding Issues
Budget Installs Thru FYDPBy Fiscal Year
% of Budgeted Installs in
Spider
Install Readiness Status
Assessment
27
Programlogohere
Software MaturitySoftware Trouble Reports (STRs)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
- 360Days
- 270Days
- 180Days
- 90Days
- 45Days
Present
PRI 1's
PRI 2's
PRI 3's
PRI 4's
Others
S/W BuildVersion x.xx
# of STRs
28
Programlogohere
Software MaturityPriority 1 STR’s
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2/1/
2001
4/1/
2001
6/1/
2001
8/1/
2001
10/1
/200
1
12/1
/200
1
2/1/
2002
4/1/
2002
6/1/
2002
8/1/
2002
10/1
/200
2
12/1
/200
2
2/1/
2003
4/1/
2003
6/1/
2003
8/1/
2003
10/1
/200
3
12/1
/200
3
2/1/
2004
4/1/
2004
6/1/
2004
8/1/
2004
10/1
/200
4
12/1
/200
4
Pri-1 (total) Pri-1 (closed)
29
Programlogohere
2
1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1
1 1 1
0 0
0 0 0 0
1
1 1 1
1
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
SP
New
Analysis
Asgn - 11.1.2
TEST
Software MaturityPriority 1 STR Status
30
Programlogohere
[Combat capability]
Threshold Objective
[C4I Interoperability, (Strategic, Theater, Force Coord.)]
[Endurance]
[Cost]
[Manning]
[Sustained Speed]
KPP Compliance
31
ProgramlogohereNESI SUMMARY
Technical Evaluation Summary
Count ScoringNo Evaluation
No Compliance (0)
Low Compliance (1)
Some Compliance (2)
Complete Compliance (4)
Waived
Waived (Registered)
131 Total Tests
Evaluation Count
Total Score
2.26 Mean Score
Best Possible Total Score
Percent of Best Possible Score
Acquisition Evaluation Summary
Count ScoringNo Evaluation
No Compliance (0)
Low Compliance (1)
Some Compliance (2)
Complete Compliance (4)
Waived
Waived (Registered)
35 Total Tests
Evaluation Count
Total Score
3.31 Mean Score
Best Possible Total Score
Percent of Best Possible Score
32
ProgramlogohereNESI Status
0
1
2
3
4
Acq
uis
itio
n
0 1 2 3 4
Technical
No Compliance
Complete Compliance
Some Compliance
Low Compliance
The “Mean Score” from each summary chart automatically
creates the Maturity level.
The “Mean Score” from each summary chart automatically
creates the Maturity level.
33
Programlogohere
COI Assessment(Based on DT Results)*
COI Risk
Effectiveness
Capacity (example)
Survivability (example)
Joint Interoperability (Net Ready)
Etc.
Suitability
Reliability
Maintainability
Operational Availability
Logistic Supportability
Compatibility
Interoperability
Training
Human Factors
Safety
Documentation
* For DRR, assess likelihood of achieving COI Thresholds
35
Programlogohere
Developmental Testing &Evaluation (DT&E) Results
Parameter Threshold Objective Result/Assessment
KPP’s
KPP 1
KPP 2
MOE’s/MOS’s
MOE 1
MOE 2
MOS 1
MOS 2
CTP’s
CTP 1
CTP 2
43
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist
Navy Criteria for Certification: The following criteria for certification of readiness applies to all OT&E for all Navy Programs (EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E). The program manager with the concurrence of the OTA, may tailor criteria listed below ( with the exception of item #1). The MDA may add criteria as necessary to determine the readiness for OT.
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
1. The TEMP is current and approved. OT prior to Milestone B shall have
an approved T&E Strategy (TES).
2. DT&E results indicate DT objectives and performance thresholds
identified in the TEMP have been satisfied for the ORD/CDD/CPD, as
appropriate.
a. If no, are they projected to be at system maturity, and do the results
indicate that the system will perform successfully in OT&E?
b. In addition, will they meet the criteria for approval at the next program
decision milestone (e.g., full rate production on completion of
IOT&E)?
3. All significant areas of risk have been identified and corrected, or
mitigation pans are in place.
4. DT&E data and reports have been provided to the OTA not less than
30 days prior to the commencement of OT, unless otherwise agreed to
by the OTA.
5. Entrance criteria for OT identified in the TEMP have been satisfied.
44
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
6. System operating, maintenance, and training documents have been
provided to the OTA 30 days prior to the OTRR, unless otherwise
agreed to by the OTA.
7. Logistic support, including spares, repair parts, and support/ground
support equipment is available as documented.
a. Is there any logistics support which will be used during OT&E, but will
not be used with the system when fielded (e.g., contractor provided
depot level maintenance)?
8. The OT&E manning of the system is adequate in numbers, rates,
ratings, and experience level to simulate normal operating conditions.
9. Training has been completed and is representative of that planned for
fleet units.
10. All resources required to execute OT including instrumentation,
simulators, targets, and expendables have been identified and are
available.
11. Models, simulators, and targets have been accredited for intended
use.
45
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
12. The system provided for OT&E, including software, is production
representative. Differences between the system provided for test and
production configuration shall be addressed at the OTRR.
13. Threat information (e.g., threat system characteristics and
performance, electronic countermeasures, force levels, scenarios, and
tactics), to include security classification, required for OT&E is
available to satisfy OTA test planning.
14. The system is safe to use as planned in the concept of employment.
Any restrictions to safe employment are stated.
a. The environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) program
requirements have been satisfied.
b. The system complies with Navy/Marine Corps environmental, safety,
and occupational health/hazardous waste requirements, where
applicable.
c. Environmental, safety, and occupational health/hazardous waste
reviews and reports have been provided to the OTA.
46
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
15. All software is sufficiently mature and stable for fleet introduction.
a. All software Trouble Reports are documented with appropriate impact
analyses. There are no outstanding Trouble Reports that:
1) Prevent the accomplishment of an essential capability.
2) Jeopardize safety, security, or other requirement designated "critical“.
3) Adversely affect the accomplishment of an essential capability and no
work-around solution is known, or
4) Adversely affect technical, cost, or schedule risks to the project or to
life-cycle support of the system, and no work-around solution is
known.
16. For software qualification testing (SQT), a Statement of Functionality
that describes the software capability has been provided to the OTA
and CNO (N091).
47
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
17. For programs with interoperability requirements (e.g., NR-KPP
ORD/CDD/CPD), appropriate authority has approved the ISP.
a. JITC concurs that program interoperability demonstrated in
development has progressed sufficiently for the phase of OT to be
conducted.
18. Approval of spectrum certification compliance and spectrum
supportability has been obtained.
19. For IT systems, including NSS, the system has been assigned a MAC
and Confidentiality Level.
a. System certification accreditation documents, including the SSAA and
the Authority to Operate (ATO) or Interim Authority to Operate (IATO),
has been provided to the OTA.
20. Other(s)…
48
Programlogohere
Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)
Yes No N/A Approval
Date
21. For aircraft programs, there are no unresolved NAVAIRSYSCOM
deficiencies that affect:
a. Airworthiness
b. Capability to accomplish the primary or secondary mission(s)
c. Safety of the aircrew/operator/maintainer
d. Integrity of the system or an essential subsystem
e. Effectiveness of the operator as an essential subsystem
49
Programlogohere
e
LIK
EL
IHO
OD
e
d
c
b
a
CONSEQUENCEdcba
HighMedium
Low Medium
Risk Advisory Board:[Mr. X, PMA xxx][Ms. Y, XYZ Corp][Ms. Z, DASN YY]
• •
•
• A brief description of Issue # 4 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 4 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation• A brief description of Issue # 3 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 3 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 2 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 2 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 1 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 1 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 5 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 5 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 6 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
• A brief description of Issue # 6 and rationale for its rating.
• Approach to remedy/mitigation
•
• •
Acronyms:[IMA= Intermediate Maintenance Activity]
Program Risk Assessment
Acrobat Document
50
ProgramlogohereKey Issues
No further action required
Significant interest outside Program
Cannot be solved within the Program
Legend
Issue Due Date Response Status
51
Programlogohere
Other Decision Factors and Challenges
• [List as appropriate]
• Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready for OT&E on [date]
• Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready to enter SDD Phase