foreword - dau.edu sponsored documents... · verification and authentication. developmental...

2

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 pro-cess to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) Acquisition Policy and Logistics (APL) Directorate, [email protected]

//SIGNED// Ray M. Gagne

Acting DASA(APL) (Acquisition, Policy, and Logistics)

3

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 which can be modified and tailored to support unique program re-quirements.

Provides 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 which Program Managers and Life Cycle Management Com-mands (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 sup-port (ICS) to bridge the gap between hardware issue and the supporting logistics infrastructure. Contracting is the foundation up-on which the TM development rests. A good contract, that is monitored rigorously, 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 crite-ria 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) 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 be tasked via an already established ASA(ALT) Acquisi-tion Metrics Data Call (currently pushed out by ASA(ALT)—DASCs) to report quarterly on verification plan results. PMs will submit the verification plan results into the Acquisition Information Repository (AIR) for tracking purposes at: https://www.dodtechipedia.mil/dodc/plugins/AIR/airdocuments.action

https://www.dodtechipedia.mil/dodc/plugins/AIR/airdocuments.action



4

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 develop-ment, contract monitoring, deliverable review and the Integrated Product Team (IPT) required to develop the TMdocuments.

Responsible for establishing the PSM IPT in order to support the development of the SOW and review of all delivera-bles.

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

• Equipment Publications Certification Officer (EPCO) — ensures contract language is streamlined to meet Army Pub-

lishing 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 Logistics Data Analysis Center(LDAC) and Army Publishing Directorate (APD).

• Provides the technical writer and provisioner required to review and concur with all deliverables. Leads the TM

veri-fication event, is the key participant in 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 Logistics Information Warehouse (LIW) Electronic TM (ETM) website and coordinates for updates

over the life cycle of the TM.

TRADOC:

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

Key participant on the PSM IPT and provides concurrence on TMs during verification, maintainability demonstra-

tions, and maintenance evaluations.

User representatives fall under various TRADOC organizations.

TRADOC Capabilities Manager (TCM).

Combined Armed Support Command (CASCOM) System Integration Division (SID Maintenance Training Repre-

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

ATEC:

Independent evaluator for suitability and participates on the PSM IPT.

5

Table of Contents

Part I Technical Manual Development Timeline and Quality Review Process .................................................... 7

1. TM Incremental Development Timeline and PSM IPT Activities ......................................................................................... 7

Table I: PSM IPT Members ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 1. Phased TM and Provisioning Development Model Flow Chart ........................................................................ 10

Figure 2. ETM/IETM Development and Review Process Working Group Flow Chart ...................................................... 11

2. PSM IPT Quality Review Process ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 3. Rapid Procurement Timeline for COTS Flow Chart ........................................................................................... 13

3. COTS/NDI: 6-12 Month Development Timeline ................................................................................................................ 14

Part II Framing Technical Manual Development .......................................................................................................... 15

1. Schoolhouse Familiarization ............................................................................................................................................. 15

2. What is Product Support Analysis and Logistics Product Data? ........................................................................................ 15

2.1 Product Support Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 17

2.1.1 How Does the FMECA Influence TM Development? .................................................................................... 17

2.1.2 How Does the LORA Influence TM Development? ....................................................................................... 18

Table II: PSA Standards and Relationships ...................................................................................................................... 19

3. Logistics Products Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... 20

Part III Technical Manual Development and the Acquisition Framework ......................................................... 21

1. Milestone A (MS A) and Technology Maturation Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase .............................................................. 21

2. Milestone B (MS B) and Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase ............................................................ 22

3. Milestone C (MS C) and Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase .................................................................................. 23

4. TMs at Maintainability Demonstration (MD) and Maintainability Evaluation (ME) ......................................................... 23

5. TM Verification Planning ................................................................................................................................................... 24

Part IV Technical Manual Contract Development Guidance .................................................................................... 25

1. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Planning ..................................................................................................................... 25

2. Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria (SSEC) Development ......................................................................................... 25

3. Optional Contracting Vehicle ............................................................................................................................................ 26

4. Post Contract Award ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

5. Deliverable Review and Quality Assurance Process .......................................................................................................... 26

6. Data Rights ........................................................................................................................................................................ 27

7. Contracting for Manufacturer (COTS) Manuals ................................................................................................................ 28

8. Contracting for DA-Authenticated COTS Technical Manuals ............................................................................................ 28

Part V Standard Statement of Work Language ............................................................................................................. 29

1. Electronic Technical Manuals and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (ETMs/IETMs) ............................................ 29

1.1 Contractor Requirements ......................................................................................................................................... 29

1.2 Contractor Personnel ............................................................................................................................................... 29

1.3 Work Packages for Common Items .......................................................................................................................... 29

6

1.4 ETM and IETM Development ................................................................................................................................... 29

1.5 Operator and Field Level Maintenance Manuals ..................................................................................................... 30

1.6 ETM/IETM Development Plan and Guidance Conference ........................................................................................ 31

2. Review Timelines .............................................................................................................................................................. 32

2.1 30 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance ...................................................................................................... 32

2.2 70 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance ...................................................................................................... 32

2.3 100 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance ................................................................................................... 32

2.4 Technical Manual In-Process Reviews (TM IPRs) ...................................................................................................... 34

2.5 Technical/Source Data ............................................................................................................................................. 34

2.6 Validation and Joint Audit ........................................................................................................................................ 35

2.7 Verification ............................................................................................................................................................... 35

2.8 Incorporation of Comments ..................................................................................................................................... 35

2.9 TM/ETM Delivery Requirements .............................................................................................................................. 35

2.10 Electronic Delivery ................................................................................................................................................. 36

2.11 Quality Assurance................................................................................................................................................... 36

2.11.1 Quality Assurance Program Plan ................................................................................................................ 36

2.11.2 Responsibility for Inspection ...................................................................................................................... 36

3. Illustrations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 37

4. Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) ............................................................................................................................... 37

5. Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) ....................................................................................................................... 37

6. Changes to Technical Publications .................................................................................................................................... 37

7. Special Tools ..................................................................................................................................................................... 38

8. Technical Bulletins ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

9. COTS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 38

10. Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis ................................................................................................................... 39

11. Level of Repair Analysis ..................................................................................................................................................... 39

12. Maintenance Task Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 39

13. LPD SOW Language ........................................................................................................................................................... 40

14. Documents and Data Items Used for LPD Deliverables .................................................................................................... 40

15. TM and Provisioning Points of Contact by Command ....................................................................................................... 40

16. Organic Product Support Analysis Support ....................................................................................................................... 40

List of References ................................................................................................................................... 41

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 42

A. Sample Rejection Letter ......................................................................................................................... 43 B. Sample CDRLs ...................................................................................................................................... 45 C. Quality Assurance Program Plan .............................................................................................................. 53 D. Policy Memo Referencing Manufacturer’s Name ......................................................................................... 64 E. Clarification to Policy Memo: User Representatives for TM Verifications .......................................................... 65

7

PART I TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE AND QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS

1. TM Incremental Development Timeline and PSM IPT Activities

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 repre-sentative, 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 theDoD Military Standard for Technical Manual Preparation, MIL-STD-40051. This Standard establishes the technical content re-quirements 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 willbe supplemented in some way to meet Army needs. These manuals will be assessed against the requirements of the Perfor-mance Specification: Evaluation and Preparation of Supplemental Data, MIL-PRF-32216A which provides criteria for evaluationof COTS manuals for acceptance. The MIL-PRF also provides requirements for preparing supplemental data to COTS manuals. ACOTS 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 re-quired. This type of manual is not referred to as technical manual or technical equipment publication (these manuals do not re-ceive 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 den-sity 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 automated development software (IADS). PSMs are required to request 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 representa-tive, 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 sup-plemental 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.”

8


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 pro-grams 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 gov-ernment 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 the Acquisition Life Cycle 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 develop-ment, 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 man-ufacturer 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 pro-grams.

Figure 3 on page 13 depicts a visual guide for the incremental contract deliverable review phases and process unique to a rapid development COTs/NDI program.

9


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 (and Quality Assurance

Team)

Contract Development and QA process for Tech-nical Manual Develop-ment

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 deliverables


PM or CERDEC Maintenance Engineer



LCMC ILSC or PM Lead Technical writer


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 SIDPOC QA TM deliverables

Concurrence Sheets

ATEC Feedback on TIRs, Inde-pendent Evaluator for

suitability

Suitability State-ment

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

Validated & Veri-fied TM

ARDEC/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, NetworkEnterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) Directorate of Doctrine and Intelligence Systems Training (DDIST) and Tactical Fu-sion Division signs off on TM concurrence sheets, for DCGS-A, etc. *ARDEC = Army Research and Development Command.

12

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 accom-plished 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 withthe Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and contract deliverable schedule. The PSM establish-es 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 completedeliverable for accuracy and usability, as written, against the drawing packages to include sche-matics, 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 writerand 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, con-tent usability as written, diagrams, schematics, etc. (Note—NETCOM Directorate of Doctrineand Intelligence Systems Training (DDIST) supports Intelligence Systems Training and TM Verifi-cation).

7. The PSM supported by the technical writer will ensure the deliverable comments are consolidat-ed 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 discusscomments and redlines and provide clarification, as needed. (This process is repeated at the 70percent, 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 require-

ments:

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 require-

ment.

FORMAT — using the IADS tool, formatting and quality deficiencies are easily identifiable by the Con-tractor as well as the government POCs reviewing in IADS. Use of IADS will greatly increase the ability for the PSM IPT to accurately perform 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 forthe purpose of the Contractor and PSM IPT use during TM quality reviews and checks. This decreasesrisk to the verification as the instructions can be hands-on reviewed for accuracy and usability, ratherthan just desktop reviewed. If that is not feasible, this quality review process will still reduce risk andcost to the government.

LOGISTICS Test assets are KEY to review process

PSM=

Participative Leader

But….

It takes a TEAM

14


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 pro-gram, 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 (initialdraft 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 everapplies.

FUE at validation exercise/new equipment training (VALEX/NET) – train FUE Soldiers, hand receipt equip-ment. Unit uses for 2-4 weeks and PM trainers and testers on site document any deficiencies. Deficienciesare incorporated into the FRC TM. (This is a Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) unique pro-cess, your program may vary – but this gives an idea of how quickly things work in a rapid COTs/NDI pro-gram).

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 onlyapplicable 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 todevelop 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) conduct-ed 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 interopera-bility.

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

Consolidation

of efforts and

tailoring =

efficiency

15

PART II FRAMING TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT

SCHOOLHOUSE INVOLVEMENT EARLY ON

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 Li-brary 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 de-velop 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 systematicdocumented consideration of all likely ways in which a component or equipment can fail, the causesfor each failure mode, and the effects of each failure.

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

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

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

What is the School-

house teaching?

This will inform and

guide TM develop-

ment

PSA and LPD = the

foundation for the

TM

16


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 re-quired 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 (Designingand Developing Maintainable Products and Systems) are the recommended guides for establishing amaintainability program and tailoring to support the requirements for the system to ensure the analy-sis applies to the type of program (i.e., developmental, COTs/NDI, or modification) as well as drivesthe technical manual development for the individual program. The DoD RAM guide can be found athttp://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.

FMECA, PMCS, MAC, RPSTL, MTA, EDFP

17


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. How-ever, 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 isola-tion 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 de-signed out, mitigation of the risk is necessary through preventive and corrective maintenance proce-dures. 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).

Safety critical tasks are classified as; 1) catastrophic, those failure effects that may cause death, physical loss of the system, or severe environmental damage, and 2) critical, those failure effects that may cause severe injury, severe occupational illness, major system or environmental damage.

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

Reliability, criticality,

environmental, safe-

ty, design influence,

task and interval

identification

FMECA identifies

critical tasks to be

demonstrated dur-

ing TM Verification

18


2.1.2 How Does the LORA Influence TM Development?

The LORA is an analytical methodology used to assist in developing maintenance concepts, influenc-ing design, and establishing the maintenance level at which components will be replaced, repaired, or discarded based on constraints obtained through economic, noneconomic, and sensitivity evalua-tions, 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., eco-nomic, 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 alterna-tives that satisfy sustainment objectives. Through these iterative evaluation processes, a mainte-nance 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 maintaina-bility 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 com-ponent 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) Communi-cation Electronics Research and Development Center (CERDEC) LORA training class in order to under-stand what data is required, how to conduct analysis within COMPASS, and how to conduct the eco-nomic 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 accu-rate system costing estimates. For further assistance with the LORA please send an email to: [email protected]

*Please see appendix B for the sample LORA CDRL.

LORA feeds the

Maintenance Alloca-

tion Chart (MAC)

19


PSA STD/HDBK Activity Description Product/LPD

FMECA SAE-TA-STD-0017 9.5 Identifies potential design weaknesses through sys-tematic 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 verifi-cation; PMCS

RCM SAE-TA-STD-0017 9.7 Identifies preventive or scheduled maintenance tasks for an equipment end item in accordance with a spec-ified set of procedures and establishes intervals be-tween 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 mainte-nance 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 fail-ure; 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

20


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 sys-

tem 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 equip-

ment 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 oth-

er 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 sup-

port items of the end item on contract. It encompasses the complete drawing and part information associated with catalog-

ing the parts.

Provisioning Screening

Provisioning is the process of determining and acquiring the range and quantity (depth) of spares and repair parts, and sup-

port 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.

21

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 intui-tive user interfaces and reduces overall logistics footprint and life-cycle costs. Maintainability Demonstration 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 accu-racy and usability of the operator and maintainer instructions. This TIR data is required to be doc-umented within the skeletal format of the operator/maintainer instructions to feed the develop-ment 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 hu-

man systems interface (HSI) engineering before the design is stable. This ensures the PM incorpo-rates 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 In-

terface, Maintaina-

bility, Skelton Tech-

nical Manual

PART III TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ACQUISITION FRAMEWORK

22

TMRR Phase continued:

Special Tools:

Special tools directly impact the development of TM maintenance tasks as well as increased logis-tics footprint and training requirements for the Army. The government needs to ensure the Con-tractor designs the system to use the Army approved tool kits listed on the Army Enterprise Sys-tems Integration Program (AESIP) website to perform maintenance tasks. The Contractor shall en-sure all tasks can be used with the approved tool kits to reduce the logistics footprint to the gov-ernment. 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 re-quired to incorporate the TIRs into the future TM deliverables. As the system nears closer to a sta-bilized design, this is when the OEM and PSM IPT will begin to coordinate the review of TM deliver-ables. 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 pur-

pose 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 mainte-nance 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 Approved Army Standard Tools

MS B - Test Incident Re-ports and ECPs feed TM

development

Key Events:

Post Contract Award Guid-ance Conference

Post Critical Design Review

Stable Design— PSM IPT

will review initial delivera-

ble

PART III TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT OVER THE LIFE CYCLE PHASES

23

3. Milestone C (MS C) and Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase — For pro-

grams entering at MS C, the equipment during this phase will have a stable design, therefore, the system will support rapid TM and LPD development. It is recommended that maintainability be considered in the competition process for modified COTS and NDI systems in order to effect HSI, reduce TM length and complexity, and reduce operations and support costs. (For COTs/NDI defini-tions please see DFARS 2.101).

Technical Manuals at MS C and P&D Phase — TMs during this phase will most likely be

based off a COTS/NDI item with a stable design and just prior to CDR. *For those programs who have determined use of a DA-authenticated TM after evaluation against MIL-PRF-32216A follow the process for DA-authenticated TMs outlined below.

Source selection and evaluation criteria should still consider sample TMs (evaluation criteria needs to be clearly defined) and past performance (mandatory evaluation factor). This process reduces risk to the government. In order to support an expedited schedule, support those OEMs who do not have a TM developed nor have the capability to do so, the OASIS contract is an excellent vehi-cle to support partnering between the OEM and a third party logistics company who can develop the TMs against required technical data and use the OEM engineers as SMEs. The vehicle is al-ready available, open to all DoD and Federal/State agencies, has a 10 year period of performance, therefore, contract award can be expedited. *See page 26 for the OASIS contract vehicle details.

Incremental reviews (30/70/100 percent) are still required in order to ensure the government PSM IPT reviews early and incremental deliverables of the OEM’s work, ensuring accuracy and usability to support successful verification, test events, and materiel release requirements. Using this incre-mental review process, review timelines can be decreased in order to support meeting expedited program requirements, (for example change 30 days to review to two weeks, etc.). OEMs must incorporate all government comments. TM deliverables that do not meet accuracy and usability as written, will be rejected. (See Part V Standard Statement of Work language).

FMECA — The purpose of the FMECA when entering at MS C, is to identify critical tasks to inform

TM development and identify critical tasks for the TM verification. If your program is entering at MS C, you have COTs/NDI system or you are working a Modification Work Order (MWO per AR 750 -10) then you will need the FMECA to inform safety critical tasks for both hardware and software fault isolation and resolution. Per MIL-HDBK-502A, the FMECA during this phase, is reserved for design changes. The system and maintenance engineer will support the PSM in determining how to tailor data required to conduct a FMECA for this phase.

4. TMs at Maintainability Demonstration (MD) and Maintainability Evaluation(ME) — AR 700-127 and AR 25-30 are in the process of being updated to reflect the removal of

Logistics Demonstration. The new term and timing are MD and ME (see MILHDBK-470A). The MD falls under developmental test and prior to CDR while the ME occurs during a separate test event which is determined by the PSM IPT and engineers. The MD and ME will be documented within the Test Evaluation Management Plan (TEMP). TMs at this phase will be in a skeleton format.

MD is only required if the program meets one of the following three criteria; 1) New technology requiring specialized advanced skill (e.g., aluminum welding on a Stryker or composite repair), 2) Increased skill required for new MOS or existing MOS, or 3) New integration of capability or tech-nology (new business process required). If the program does not meet one of the three criteria, there is no MD. For programs that have any one of the three criteria, the MD will be conducted by the OEM on the proto-types and TRADOC will witness. The outputs of the MD will drive the deci-sion point to move forward and inform the development of the Product Support Strategy.

The PSM IPT will determine the scope and timing of the ME. Tasks that have been conducted dur-ing a previous event will not be repeated during ME (e.g., validation and verification). TMs at this phase will be well into development and depending on the timing (LUT or OT) will either be close to being validated or verified.

MS C = Stable Design Rapid development & Review

Key Events: PSM will document an

expedited schedule in

the IMS. PSM IPT will

support rapid reviews

MS C = OASIS Contracting Vehicle to Expedite


MD: Developmental Test—prior to CDR - user can influence design inter-

face prior to down-select

MAINTAINBILITY DEMO

Only required if one of the

three criteria apply:

1. New technology re-quiring advancedMOS Skill.

2. Increased skill fornew or existing MOS

3. New integration ofcapability or technol-ogy

24

5. TM Verification Planning —The PSM IPT needs to work the verification plan long before

the verification. A good milestone is just before the TM validation and immediately upon receipt ofthe approved FMECA results. The PSM IPT will identify those safety critical tasks per the FMECAand develop the 100% Hands-On verification plan for those specific tasks. The PSM, in coordina-tion with the lead technical writer, must ensure that the verification plan is finalized and signed 30calendar days prior to the start of verification by the following stakeholders:

TRADOC User Representative (TCM, CASCOM, or NETCOM) PM/PSM LCMC Commander Designee (AMC maintains commanders role in risk acceptance) ATEC Independent Evaluator

In some cases, sampling will be used to supplement a verification in addition to the 100% FMECA safety critical hands-on verification (cannot repeat tasks previously conducted). In those cases where sampling is used as part of a verification, the business process is as follows:

1. The sampling plan and methodology will be coordinated with and concurrence obtained fromthe TRADOC user representative (CASCOM, TCM or NETCOM , depending on the system) at least 30calendar days prior to verification.

2. The sampling plan must be approved by the following stakeholders:

TRADOC user representative (TCM, CASCOM or NETCOM) PM/PSM Technical Writer ATEC

3. The sampling plan needs to be developed and negotiated with the PSM IPT members and mustinclude the following:

a. methodology and standard used to determine the sample sizeb. clear "go" versus "no-go" criteria for samples material reviewedC. “No-go” findings must be documented in line with the contractual Quality AssuranceProgram Plan in order to submit to the PSM to be provided through the COR. This willenable the OEM to incorporate the updates prior to Verification TM being accepted by thegovernment.

After the verification event is complete, the PSM will submit the verification plan results into the Acquisition Information Repository (AIR) for oversight and metrics tracking pur-poses. The AIR website is located at: https://www.dodtechipedia.mil/dodc/plugins/AIR/documents.action

*Note—please see appendix E for a clarification to policy memo detailing the process to obtain userrepresentatives to support TM verification. To request a test readiness plan (TRP) number throughATEC please go to the following website: https://adss.atec.army.mil/Public/ . This database initi-ates the request for soldiers to support TM verification.


Verification = 100% Safety Criti-cal Tasks Hands-

On Remainder =

Desktop Review

25

PART IV TECHNICAL MANUAL CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE

1. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Planning:

The TM and LPD deliverable government reviews (at 30/70/100 percent), Contractor incorporation, and government acceptance needs to be detailed within the program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and phased to align with key program milestones and events. Early planning of the TM and LPD deliverable reviews and acceptance within the IMS is critical to the success of meeting Mile-stone C and materiel release requirements. The timeline required to sufficiently review contract deliverables is related to the size and complexity of the end item. For example, larger systems will require longer reviews than smaller systems. The key is to ensure there is enough time for the PSM IPT to fully review each incremental deliverable for accuracy and usability. It is also critical to en-sure the government allows the OEM reasonable time to incorporate government comments and red-line changes into the deliverable in time to meet program events and milestones.

2. Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria (SSEC) Development:

In order to select the contractor that will provide the best value and performance to the govern-ment, it is imperative the government utilize the SSEC development process. PMs need to request Offeror’s provide information that will allow the government to differentiate between Offeror’s. Key things to request are:

Government should require Offeror’s to provide sample TMs and LPD to determinetechnical capability.

The Source Selection Plan (SSP) outlines how the government will evaluate the pro-

posals to determine technical capability, price, and past performance

Past performance and price are mandatory evaluation factors

Ensure evaluations of proposals by subject matter experts in accordance with the SSP

to prevent protests.

Ensure evaluations of a contractor’s performance include information on the ability ofa prime contractor to manage and coordinate subcontractor efforts, if applicable, aswell as compliance with statutory requirements of the small business subcontractingprogram. See Guidance for Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System(CPARS) reporting Guidebook, dated 15 July, 2018 at https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf for more information and FAR 42.1502 and clause 52.219.9

For more information on how to develop SSEC, please see the Guidebook for Acquiring Engineering Technical Services (ETS): Best Practices and Lessons Learned. Version 2.0., at https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/ETS-v2.pdf and the Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance In-formation at http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/A%20guide%20to%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20past%20performance%20informance.pdf, as well as the CPARS Guidance PDF dat-ed 15 July, 2018 at https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf.

Per the Guidance for CPARS Reporting Guidebook on page 3, “The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contractor performance information be collected (FAR Part 42.15) and used in source selection evaluations (FAR Part 15). Source selection officials rely on clear and timely evalu-ations of contractor performance to make informed business decisions when awarding government contracts and orders. This information is critical to ensuring that the Federal government only does business with companies that provide quality products and services in support of the agency’s mis-sions.”

TM Development in the Integrated Master Schedule

Ensure selection of best performing Contractor

Key Events: Align TM schedule with key program events.

Proper Evaluation Criteria for Contrac-tor Selection

https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/ETS-v2.pdf

https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/ETS-v2.pdf

http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/A%20guide%20to%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20past%20performance%20informance.pdf


26


3. Optional Contracting Vehicle — PEOs and LCMCs are encouraged to use the OASIS con-

tracting vehicle for the development and sustainment of TMs and LPD. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) con-tracts reduce risk to the government and ensure the OEM is “incentivized” to develop quality prod-ucts to meet government requirements. If your production contract is anything other than a FFP, it is highly recommended that you consider using the OASIS contract vehicle in order to ensure best value and reduced cost. Other contract types are not in the best interest to the government when it comes to TMs and LPD. The OASIS contract has a ten year buying period, no ceiling, and incorpo-rates the CPARS into the vehicle. Due to technical experts not trained to perform quality assurance on the TM content, the contract language for quality assurance must be included within the task order or statement of work. For more information on the OASIS contract vehicle please go to:

https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/POOL_1_OASIS_SMALL_BUSINESS_CONTRACT.pdf and

https://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/products-services/professional-services/one-acquisition-solution-for-integrated-services-oasis (This link details how to contract with OASIS and lists all the vendors associated with the OASIS contract). See https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/docs/ETS-v2.pdf for more details on how the AFLCMC uses the OASIS vehicle.

**See attached SOW in this Guidebook for contract language and the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). Ensure review of OASIS CDRLS to ensure correct Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) are se-lected and tailored to meet the TM requirements.**

4. Post Contract Award — Post contract award, PSMs must ensure the PSM IPT members

attend a post contract award guidance conference with the OEM in order to clarify requirements,provide samples, and detail any unique/tailoring requirements.

5. Deliverable Review and Quality Assurance Process — After contract award the PSM

IPT will coordinate with the OEM to review the FMECA, MTA (as applicable), and LORA in order toensure the MAC and EDFP align with them. This will set the OEM up for success in development oftheir initial work package deliverable. Just after CDR, the OEM and the PSM IPT will now begin thereview of actual TM deliverables. This enables the government and OEM to remain engaged overthe development of the TM and LPD to provide guidance and quality assurance against all delivera-bles.The PSM IPT members need to review the TM and LPD deliverables at a minimum of, 30 percent complete (to include TM outline per the content selection matrix with all work packages identified and at least one complete work-package), 70 percent complete, and 100 percent complete. The 100 percent complete will occur in three phases; Contractor validation, government verification, and final reproducible copy to include XML source files. Government comments should not be subjec-tive. Comments need to address formatting accuracy and usability to the MIL-STD. Government comments, with regard to content, will require the user to perform all tasks, as written, in simple concise language with as few steps as possible. (See the standard Statement of Work language be-ginning on page 27 ). (Note– XML source files are only required for DA-authenticated TMs developed to MIL-STD-40051.)

The PSM IPT members will ensure the OEM incorporates all government comments and required changes in order to meet quality, usability, safety, and accuracy. For those deliverables that do not meet quality, usability, safety and accuracy, the PSM will coordinate with the COR to reject the de-liverable. This will incentivize the OEM to meet government quality requirements. (See appendix A for a sample rejection letter).

PSM IPT REVIEW AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS

Key Events: Post Contract Award Guid-ance Conference

Post Critical Design Review

and at Stable Design PSM

IPT will include the OEM

PSM HOLDS OEM ACCOUNTABLE

https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/POOL_1_OASIS_SMALL_BUSINESS_CONTRACT.pdf

27


It is imperative that the contract include the correct contract language for data rights.

6. Data Rights—The term “data rights” is frequently used as a less formal title for license rights. Both terms refer to the

same subject. The government must have both the data and the rights to use the data for successful program execution.

The DFARS governs DoD acquisition of supplies and services. DFARS clauses 252.277-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015 and 252.227-7018, supported by other regulations, define government standard license rights. These are the minimum rights the government is legally entitled to as determined by the DFARS clauses included in the contract used to order the delivery of data. “Order” means to contractually require delivery of data to the government. The clauses in the DFARS define the gov-ernment’s data license rights and entitlements. The contractor’s agreement with the terms and conditions of the contract includes granting standard rights to the government as specified in the clauses or referenced in the contract.

The DFARS license rights categories for data associated with noncommercial products are:

1. Unlimited rights (UR). UR means to have the rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose tech-

nical data in whole or in part, in any manner, and for any purpose whatsoever, and to have or authorize others to do so.

2. Government purpose rights (GPR). GPR means the right to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or dis-close technical data within the government without restrictions and to release or disclose technical data (with a nondisclosureagreement) outside the government and authorizes persons to whom release or disclosure has been made to use, modify,reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose that data for United States government purposes.

3. Limited rights (LR). LR means the rights to use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose technical data inwhole or in part within the government. The government may not, without written permission of the owner asserting thelimited rights, release or disclose the technical data outside the government, use the technical data for manufacture or au-thorize the technical data to be used by another party except that the government may reproduce, release, or disclose suchdata or authorize the use or reproduction of the data by persons outside the government if the data is necessary for emer-gency repair, is needed for information purposes only, is subject to further restrictions on release and reproduction, and theowner asserting the rights is notified.

Data Rights Clauses—If the product being developed is expected to include both commercial and noncommercial content

DFARS 227-7102-4 contract clauses prescribes both 225.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data-Non-commercial Items and DFARS 225.227.7015, Technical Data-Commercial Items clauses in the contract in order to capture requirements for both.

*Note—The above was pulled out of the AMC Guidebook titled, “A Guide to Data Item Description, Contact Data Require-ments Lists, and Standard Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement Clauses,” dated 7 September, 2017.

28


7. Contracting for Manufacturer (COTS) Manuals

For those systems that are strictly COTS (see DFARS 2.101 definition for COTS) please follow the guid-ance in AR-25-30 paragraph 3-29. The MDA will determine which ACAT III (and IV) programs fall into the category of COTS. Further, those strictly COTS systems do not require validation, verification or authentication and can be procured and managed at the individual PM level because they are low cost, low density and will not be provisioned into LMP. The manufacturer manuals may be procured off-the-shelf, as is.

8. Contracting for DA-Authenticated COTS Technical Manuals

For COTS/NDI programs that have determined the best TM type for their program is the DA-authenticated COTS TM, the procurement process consists of the PSM IPT evaluating the manufac-turer manual against MIL-PRF-32216A to determine if the manual is sufficient in the original form to meet user needs and authentication requirements. The PSM IPT will then be required to ensure the OEM or the in-house technical writer updates the manufacturer manual to be compliant for safety, suitability, and authentication requirements. The PSM still needs to address performance as well as request samples of TMs during the SSEC process. The PSM IPT is highly encouraged to use the incre-mental review and quality assurance deliverable process for those manuals requiring supplemental data being these TMs will be verified and authenticated. Incremental reviews ensure quality which supports a successful verification in order to meet user and authentication requirements, on-time.

Modified COTS and NDI TM Development—

COTS/NDI manufacturer manuals are developed after being evaluated against MIL-PRF-32216A (orlatest version) to determine what supplemental data (if any) is required. A TM verification is stillrequired against the safety critical tasks identified in the FMECA.

PSM IPT will determine the delta between the COTS/NDI manufacturer manual and where it needsto be to meet user, safety confirmation, authentication and materiel release requirements, (DA-authenticated COTS TM).

The review process for DA-authenticated COTS TMs and LPD is no different than the review pro-cess for MIL-STD TMs. The PSM IPT will be required to review deliverables to ensure it meets thecontent format selection summary for quality, usability and accuracy. The content needs to enablethe user to perform all tasks successfully, as written. DA-authenticated COTS TMs are still requiredto be submitted to the EPCO and through LOGSA to APD for authentication.

The LPD to support Provisioning is still required as part of the contract, for those TMs that will haveparts provisioned in LMP. The provisioning will support those DA-authenticated COTS TMs identi-fied as requiring a MAC and RPSTL when evaluation by the PSM IPT against the MIL-PRF-32216Adetermines it necessary as supplemental data.

FMECA— DA-authenticated COTS TMs must still meet requirements of the Army’s two level mainte-

nance policy and should be considered in the requirements and contracting process. The FMECA is still required in order to inform safety critical tasks for hardware and software fault isolation and resolution and inform the tasks to be conducted during TM verification. PSMs need to ensure this is established at the earliest point possible and discussed during the post contract award guidance conference.

COTS /NDI TMs - Add supplemental data to

support authentication

20

PART V STANDARD STATEMENT OF WORK LANGUAGE

The below SOW language has been approved by HQ AMC ACC. This language is recommended for stand-alone TM contracts and can also be incorporated in overarching OEM development/production contracts. SOW language

should be tailored to specific programs in relation to days to review deliverables and the percentage of time between the reviews. All deliverables requested in the SOW must be documented in an associated CDRL, otherwise, the OEM is

not required to deliver to the government.

1 Electronic Technical Manuals and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (ETMs/IETMs) ETMs and IETMs, as required for system delivery, shall be included in the fixed price of this Contract. The pricing of the incremental deliverables shall include incremental payment upon satisfactory completion and Government acceptance as detailed in this SOW and associated Contract Data Deliverable Lists (CDRLs). (If you have an IDIQ or some other contract type, tailor the language to meet that. Though, it is recommended that the Government use a FFP for TM and LPD deliverables in order to put the risk on the Contractor and reduce costs).

1.1 Contractor Requirements All ETMs/IETMs shall be developed against actual hands on inspection of the hardware and software of the end item and shall not be based solely on computer models. The contractor shall be required to provide ETMs, IETMs and Logistics Data Products (LPD) to include Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA), Maintenance Task Analysis (MTA), Level of Repair Analysis (LORA), Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC), Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP), Provisioning Parts List (PPL) and Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) to the Government for review and comment incorporation over an incremental review process. The Government reserves the right to inspect the Contractor’s work at any time. (Not all programs require an MTA—larger more complex systems that are developmental will most likely require an MTA. The PSM IPT will determine which programs require a MTA). TMs shall be developed against the Government approved design after the Critical Design Review. Once the design is approved the OEM shall deliver an initial review at 30 percent TM complete (to include TM outline per the Content Selection Matrix with all work packages identified and at least one complete work-package) a second review at TM 70 percent complete, and at TM 100 percent complete in three phases, validation, verification, and final reproducible copy. Contractor shall base the TM development off outputs of the FMECA, MTA, LORA, and MAC . The contractor shall incorporate all Test Incident Reports during developmental and operational test into the TMs deliverables in accordance with CDRL X. (Use DI-MISC-80711A Scientific and Technical Reports). Please see appendix B for sample CDRL. (Tailor times to your program. If you have a large or complex system, your program may require an initial delivery at 5%, 10%, 20% etc., be sure to define what you expect to see in the deliverable).

1.2 Contractor Personnel The Contractor shall participate with the Government Product Support Manager’s Integrated Product Team (PSM IPT) during the ETM/IETM and LPD development process by providing an ETM/IETM developer and LPD Subject Matter Expert (SME) to serve on the IPT. (*Note —This partnership process will ensure maximum understanding between the Contractor and Government to reach the common goal of a final reproducible copy ETM/IETM and LPD to support required program milestones and United States Government (USG) requirements).

1.3 Work Packages for Common Items

The Government shall provide Government Furnished Information (GFI) for any assemblies that already have authenticated TMs developed against them. The Contractor shall develop work packages for any new interfaces or instructions (any deltas) and reference those work packages within the TM. The Government will provide specific guidance during the post award guidance conference for any references or GFI provided.

1.4 ETM and IETM Development The scope of the manuals shall include all information required for operation and support of the X system/equipment, including system and equipment operation and maintenance, installation, setup, alignment, Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS), fault isolation, LRU removal and replacement procedures, de-installation and preparation for transportation. The maintenance information shall include a MAC reflecting the Army’s two-level maintenance policy presented in the standard MAC per CDRL X.

30

STANDARD STATEMENT OF WORK LANGUAGE

1.4 ETM and IETM Development (continued) The Contractor shall utilize the maintenance task analysis (MTA) to determine the operational, maintenance, and support functions of the system. The Contractor shall ensure that all logistics documents created under this effort agree with each other and that there is consistency among all products. The Contractor shall use the Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) as the baseline

for creation of the ETMs/IETMs. (*Note—MTA requires a CDRL, see appendix B for sample). Tailor PSA to reflect your program’s maintainability goals using DoD RAM guide. MTA is most applicable to developmental programs, however, COTS/NDI programs still require engineering analysis in order to inform RAM to increase readiness and decrease O&S costs). For the ETM/IETM development, the contractor shall include interfaces to training systems, system Built-in Test, troubleshooting, and fault isolation procedures. For ETM development, the contractor shall include operation and maintenance information on all applicable IN- FOSEC functions and procedures (get guidance from system engineer on applicable language here). The contractor shall ensure the Test Incident Reports (TIR)s are incorporated into the ETM over the system development to include outputs of System Re- quirements Review, System Functional Review, Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review, Test Readiness Review and Production Readiness Review (as applicable to your system’s Acquisition Phase) and provided per CDRL X. (See sample CDRL in appendix B).

1.5 Operator and Field Level Maintenance Manuals The contractor shall develop, update, and maintain ETMs/IETM for all -10 Operator Manuals, and -XX&P, Field Level Mainte- nance Manuals, Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) for all “INSERT Program name here” equipment per MIL-STD-40051-2 (latest version) for ETMs and all IETMs shall be developed to MIL-STD-40051-1. (*Note—If you are using the IADS viewer the IETM can be developed to the MIL-STD-40051-2. Only use MIL-STD-40051-1 for IETMs developed in a legacy viewer.)

For Interactive Electronic TMs (IETM) Contractor shall use Extensible Mark-up Language (XML) tagged data files using MIL-STD- 45001-1, Document Type Definitions (DTDs) and style sheets in accordance with MIL-STD-45001-1 ( –1 version is only used for IETMs, Electronic TMs are built to MIL-STD-40051-2, latest version). ETMs shall be developed to MIL-STD-40051-2 (latest version) using guidance found in MIL-HDBK-1222 (latest version), MIL-STD-3031/ASD, MIL-PRF-63002 (latest version), and MIL-PRF- 63033 (latest version). “Latest version” throughout this SOW means the most current version of the MILSTD or PRF. (It is imperative that the Government direct the Contractor, in the contract, to use the most recent version of all publications, for development of new TMs, updates to existing TMs may be to the older version of MIL-STD-40051). The latest version of the MIL-STDs can be found at: https://www.logsa.army.mil/#/MILSTD40051A

Contractor shall use XML for all digital graphics/illustrations (figures, graphics, drawings, diagrams, art-work) to include line drawings, photographs, engineering drawings, diagrams, charts and graphs, sketches, schematics, tools and tool and test equipment. (XML source files are only applicable to DA-authenticated TMs developed to MIL-STD-40051). *Must include in a CDRL— see sample XML CDRL in appendix B.

Contractor shall use digital electronic files (PDF) on Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) in searchable, editable, linkable and intelligent format with 100% embedded fonts. Contractor shall ensure there are no Unicode issues and all files are Windows 10 compatible.

The Contractor shall develop IETMs (-23&P) IAW MIL-STD-40051-2(or Latest version}, TABLE A-XVII.

Content for IETMs shall be based upon the results of the system’s maintenance task analysis (MTA) and associated logistics product data (LPD). The Contractor shall ensure that IETMs are compatible with viewer software and capable of being viewed on a standalone laptop computer with viewer.

A RPSTL shall be incorporated as a separate Volume to the TM -XX&P as determined by the Government at the Post Award Guidance Conference.

Contractor shall abide by guidance provided in appendix D of this SOW as it pertains to use of proprietary names or logos. (Please see memo in appendix D and ensure this is provided to the Contractor at the Guidance Conference).


31

1.6 ETM/IETM Development Plan and Guidance Conference Review of the Contractor’s ETM/IETM plan will be conducted 30 days after contract award. The Government shall have 10 business days to review the plan. The Government shall submit comments back to the Contractor within 10 business days for Con- tractor review and discussion. The ETM/IETM development plan will be reviewed and finalized jointly between the Contractor and the Government at the post award guidance conference 60 days after award. (*Note - tailor the days after award to meet your Integrated Master Schedule). The guidance conference shall take place at either the Contractor’s location or the Govern- ment, whichever is mutually agreeable to both.

The Government shall provide program specific style manuals and appropriate samples as an appendix to the SOW. The Govern- ment shall provide all tailoring requirements to the Contractor at the post award guidance conference. The Contractor shall use this information along with all MIL-STDs/PRFs referenced in this SOW to develop an ETM/IETM and LPD development plan that meets all Government requirements outlined in this SOW.

The ETM/IETM Guidance Conference will be the final review of the ETM/IETM and LPD development plan according to all Gov- ernment guidance, style manuals, and program unique tailoring requirements. The ETM/IETM plan shall meet all requirements of the MILSTDs/PRFs and timelines presented in this SOW and CDRL X (Insert your program ETM/IETM plan CDRL here and tailor accordingly using Scientific and Technical Reports DI-MISC-80711A and IEEE 15288). (The DIDs are located at https:// assist.dla.mil).

Final Government comments from the post award guidance conference will be submitted to the COR within 10 business days of the Guidance Conference for Contractor incorporation. The Contractor shall incorporate all Government comments within 10 business days and submit to the Government. The Government will accept the ETM/IETM plan as a final deliverable once the Government verifies that all comments have been incorporated. (Formatting and content review and acceptance requirements the Contractor must meet are detailed in the matrix checklist at the back of MIL-STD-40051-2 (most current version) for ETMs, IETMS shall be built to MIL-STD-40051-1 when using a legacy viewer other than IADS).

32


2 REVIEW TIMELINES

*Note – the days to review should be related to the level of complexity of your program. Shorter than 30 day reviewperiods may apply for less complex/more mature systems and longer reviews may apply for more complex/less maturesystems, this is just a guide. The goal is to give the PSM IPT enough time to adequately review for quality, usability,and accuracy. Days to incorporate need to be realistic and allow the Contractor enough time to incorporate edits intime to meet program deadlines. Similarly, if you have a large program, you may want to have more deliverable reviews, 5 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, etc. The minimum is 30/70/100 but you can add frequency in order to meetthe unique needs of your requirement. Just ensure it is detailed in the SOW, IMS, and CDRLs.

2.1 30 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance The Contractor shall submit a 30 percent (to include TM outline per the Content Selection Matrix with all work packages identified and at least one complete work-package) ETM/IETM and MAC, EDFP and PPL to the Government for review at X days after award and per CDRL X. The Government shall have 30 days to review the ETM(s), MAC, EDFP, and PPL and the IETM. The Gov- ernment shall provide all mark-ups, and comments to the Contracting Officer Representative for the Contractor to incorporate into the 30 percent ETMs/IETM and MAC, EDFP, and PPL deliverable. All Government comments shall be incorporated at no additional cost to the Government and shall be included in the price of this contract. If the Government verifies the comments have not been incorporated, the Government shall reject the deliverable. (PSM IPT comments cannot be subjective. Comments should address accuracy in format and content and usability in format and content, as written and per the Format/Content Ma- trix).). See appendix A for a sample rejection letter. See appendix B for sample TM delivery CDRL).

*MAC, EDFP, and PPL may be reviewed at separate intervals just be sure to stipulate the times in the SOW and the IMS.

2.2 70 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance The Contractor shall submit a 70 percent (complete TM work packages, diagrams, schematics, etc.) ETM/IETM and MAC, EDFP, PPL and RPSTL to the Government for review at X days after award. The 70 Percent submission shall incorporate all Test Incident Reports findings, incorporate all system configuration changes from critical design review and test readiness review. The Govern- ment shall have 30 days to review the ETM(s), MAC, EDFP, and PPL and the IETM. The Government shall provide all mark-ups, edits, and comments to the Contracting Officer Representative for the Contractor to incorporate into the 70 percent ETMs/IETM and MAC, EDFP, PPL, and RPSTL deliverable per CDRL X. All Government comments shall be incorporated at no additional cost to the Government and shall be included in the price of this contract. If the Government verifies the comments have not been incorporated, the Government shall reject the deliverable. (PSM IPT comments cannot be subjective. Comments should address accuracy in format and content and usability in format and content, as written and per the Format/Content Matrix).

2.3 100 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance The 100% review will take place in three phases to support incorporation of any and all government comments identified during the Contractor hands-on validation of all nondestructive tasks and procedures, the Government verification and the Final Repro- ducible Copy (FRC). (See sample CDRL in appendix B).


33

2.3 100 Percent Submission Review and Acceptance (continued)

a. Contractor Validation Submission Review and AcceptanceThe validated TM submission shall incorporate all changes, additions, and ECPs, and TIR driven updates and corrections for both hardware and software. The Government shall have 30 days to review the validated ETM and IETM. The Government shall submit the edits, comments, and mark-ups to the COR for the Contractor to incorporate into the ETMs and IETMs, MAC, and RPSTLs per CDRL X. The contractor shall incorporate all comments, edits, and mark-ups and provide the 100% validated ETM and IETM deliverables within X days. If the Government determines the comments have not been incorporated, the Government shall reject the deliverable. (PSM IPT comments cannot be subjective. Address accuracy in format and content and usability in format and content, as written and per the Format/Content Matrix). (See sample CDRL in appendix B).

b. Government Verification Submission Review and AcceptanceThe verification ETMs and IETMs shall include 100% of all comments incorporated and accepted by the Government from the validated TMs and any other previous events as well as any last-minute changes or modifications to the end item hardware or software reflected within the ETMs/IETMs and RPSTLs. The Contractor shall provide X copies of the ETMs and IETMs to the Govern- ment to support verification. During the verification, the Government will document all comments with regard to the consistency, accuracy, and usability of the ETMs and IETMs and consistency between the MAC, RPSTL, ETM, and IETM. The Government shall be able to successfully conduct all tasks using the verified TM submission deliverable using the TMs and RPSTL as written. The Government shall be able to conduct 100% of the critical tasks using the approved tool kits to perform the critical tasks as identified in the FMECA, the remaining tasks will be performed using random sampling as detailed in the Verification Plan (coordinated by the PSM IPT). The Government shall be able to conduct all tasks in accordance with the Verification Plan (detailed in section x of this SOW and CDRL X). The verification ETMs and IETMs require a 15 day review per CDRL X. Any changes (if there were any identified) will be sent back to the Contractor through the COR to incorporate. The Contractor has 30 days to incorporate all comments and return back to the Government for acceptance. The Government reserves the right to reject the deliverable if Government comments were not incorporated. (See sample CDRL in appendix B).

c. Final Reproducible Copy (FRC) Submission Review and AcceptanceThe Contractor shall provide a FRC of the ETMs, IETMs, and RPSTLs to the Government to include all XML Source Files (Graphics, Macros, etc.) and CD/DVDs (insert date when the FRC is due). The FRC shall include all comments from the verification TM as well as final updates to the RPSTL. The Government shall receive the FRC from the COR and review for any final comments. If there are no changes required, the Government shall accept the FRC. If there are final changes needing to be made the Contrac- tor shall incorporate all changes within 10 business days and return back to the Government via the COR for review and acceptance. The Government reserves the right to reject the deliverable if comments are not incorporated per CDRL X. (See sample CDRL in appendix B).

*Note—CDRL pricing for rejections and withhold of payment for FFP contracts:Regarding CDRLs and rejections and payment withholds, it is recommended to isolate and separately price the CDRLs for TM deliverables, at a minimum. Otherwise, a single, “not separately priced” CLIN for all CDRLs could be problematic when attempting to withhold payment. Additionally, there should be scope within Section C to link CDRL rejections to payment withhold. The example Section C scope from the JLTV contract (Firm Fixed Price) is below.

"For (FMECA, LORA, XML, and Technical Manual CDRLs) the Contractor shall include with each payment request a list of CDRL submissions associated with the work performed. The list of CDRL submissions (e.g. 30 percent, 70 percent, etc. tailor to your incremental delivery schedule) shall include the CDRL number, name, due date, submittal date, and a description of the work performed. The Government will review each payment request to confirm receipt of all deliverables associated with the payment request. Acceptance will be through a PCO letter to DCMA or the KO authorizing payment to the contractor. The PCO may withhold payment if all acceptance criteria and deliverables are not met in the month billed,” (example, not meeting quality for the percent deliverable).


34

2.4 Technical Manual In-Process Reviews (TM IPRs) The Contractor shall participate in Technical Manual In-Process Reviews as part of the PSM IPT. Integrated Product Team tele- conferences (timeline for frequency of teleconference calls shall be determined and mutually agreed upon during the post award guidance conference) throughout the development of the end item, ETMs/IETMs and LPD. Face to face meetings shall be conducted between the Program Office selected personnel prior to the 30 percent deliverable, prior to the 70 percent deliverable, and once prior to the 100 percent validation deliverable of the TM and LPD submissions per CDRL X. (If your PM wants to attend a face to face prior to verification or FRC, add to the SOW and include in a CDRL).

The meetings shall be held at the Contractor facility in order for the Government to inspect the processes and products at the Contractor facility. The In-Process reviews shall consist of the Government providing final informal guidance and feedback to the Contractor prior to the draft submission of the percent deliverable as a quality review process. (Include in the CDRL “the contractor shall conduct IPRs in accordance with this SOW paragraph 2.3 and this CDRL”). Meeting minutes and Results of IPRs shall be documented and submitted per CDRL X and DI-ADMN-81308A.

2.5 Technical/Source Data The Contractor shall deliver MIL-STD-40051 or MIL-PRF-63029 or MIL-PRF-63002 or MIL-STD-38784 compliant, well-formed XML. The Contractor shall deliver each XML instance along with source data, to include illustrations, supporting files, and associated information required to maintain, edit, or re-author the publications. The Contractor shall package and deliver all source material for all deliverables under this contract – defined as operating plans, standard procedures, computer documents and residual material, source codes, computer disks and tapes, and all other media containing digital files developed to fulfill the requirements of this SOW – to accompany each technical manual final reproducible copy (FRC) deliverable under this contract. All art- work and schematics delivered under this contract shall be turned over concurrent to the FRC submission.

Notwithstanding trade compliance restrictions, technical data restrictions, or security classifications, all source data developed exclusively with Government funds shall be delivered with unlimited rights per DFARS 227-7013, Rights in Technical Data-Non- commercial Items and DFARS 225.227.7015, Technical Data-Commercial Items (you may need both or just one or the other depending on whether your system is COTs/NDI or Developmental, refer to page 27 of this guidebook for more details) to the Gov- ernment for reproduction, use, and distribution. All codes, intellectual property rights, and technical data rights used to gener- ate technical publications in support of this SOW shall revert to the Government in the event that the Contractor no longer supports the program. Contractor shall provide source data to the Government in accordance with this SOW, CDRL X and Data Item Description DI-SESS-81000E. (Check ASSIST to ensure all DIDs are current and up-to-date).

Examples of source data are as follows: All eXtensible Markup Language (XML) tagged data files using MIL-STD Document Type Definitions (DTDs) and style sheets

All digital graphics and illustrations, to include line drawings, photographs, engineering drawings, diagrams, schematics, charts, graphs, and tools and test equipment illustrations

All digital electronic files (PDF) in searchable, editable, linkable, and intelligent format with 100% embedded fonts, no Unicode issues, and Windows 10 compatible

All validation and verification records, reports, and certifications

All Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or other vendor technical data and graphics used in technical publication development, and all copyright releases as applicable


35

2.6 Validation and Joint Audit The Contractor shall provide the Government with a Validation Plan at X days after award. The Government shall have X days to review and provide comments/feedback to the Contractor for incorporation. The Contractor shall be available to participate in a Validation Plan Technical Review to provide intent, entrance and exit criteria and ensure understanding of the requirements by the Contractor. The plan shall reflect the system’s maintenance concept and detail the contractor’s recommended validation procedures in order to conduct a 100 percent technical manual to end item hands on validation, for all nondestructive procedures. The Contractor’s Validation Plan shall also include component and support equipment manuals in the Validation Plan, if applicable, as well as any support equipment requirements. Contractor shall also request any GFE required to conduct validation. Validation shall be conducted in the presence of government representatives, of all ETMs/IETMs at the contractor’s facility. In addition to content validation, the Extensible Markup Language (XML) tags shall be parsed and any errors corrected, and all IETM functionality requirements shall be validated as operational and correct. All IETM functionality shall be available for government inspection at any time. If a task does not validate, the contractor shall also provide a record of the validation criteria and corrective action taken. Validation records will be available for Government review upon request. ETM validation shall be conducted against the most current version of the end item and Government personnel shall witness the validation. The contractor shall provide appropriate office space or workspace, an equipment specialist, and/or engineer directly involved with the development of the hardware and software who has access to the contractor’s drawing packages. The contractor shall ensure accessibility to all tools and test equipment required, according to the MAC for each of the X systems. The contractor’s validation records shall be available for Government inspection at any time per CDRL X (QA CDRL). Con- tractor shall provide a validation plan per CDRL X and provide a finalized validation report with all findings per CDRL X. (Tailor a CDRL for Scientific and Technical Reports Data Item Description DI-MISC-80711A and IEEE 15288.2).

2.7 Verification The Verification Plan shall be developed after the submission of the FMECA (or FEMCA Data) and the FMECA analysis results have been approved by the Government and reviewed jointly by the OEM and PSM IPT. During verification, the Government shall verify the technical manuals by performing selected operating and maintenance procedures for those safety critical items identified within the FMECA, using target audience personnel. A 100 percent desk review of those portions of the TM not selected for hands-on performance shall be conducted, as determined by the PSM IPT and verification team. Random sampling will be used to verify randomly selected areas of the TM. All functional features of the TMs shall also be verified as operational and correct. The verification shall be held at the contractor’s facility but may be held at a Government location if so mutually agreed upon. The contractor shall provide, at the verification site, X copies of each ETM/IETM to be verified, appropriate office or work space and sufficient hardware to review each ETM/IETM; a working copy of the equipment to be verified, including hardware and software; personnel necessary to document changes to the publications and resolve hardware and software issues; and all tools and test equipment required, according to the Maintenance Concept/MAC, to perform all procedures in each ETM/IETM. (Tailor a CDRL for Scientific and Technical Reports Data Item Description DI-MISC-80711A and IEEE 15288.2).

2.8 Incorporation of Comments Comments provided by the Government at the 30 percent, 70 percent, and 100 percent review shall be coordinated through the COR and guidance provided in this SOW and CDRL X. (If your review timeline is more frequent than the 30. 70, and 100 percent ensure you detail your percent reviews throughout the contract language and within the CDRLs).

2.9 TM/ETM Delivery Requirements The contractor shall pack one copy of both the paper ETM/IETM, -10 and one paper copy of the –23&P -24&P, etc. (CDRL required).


36

2.10 Electronic Delivery Contractor shall prepare digital data for electronic delivery per XML stated in the latest version of MIL-STD-40051.

a. Data prepared and delivered digitally in accordance with this standard shall be Extensible Markup Language (XML)tagged using the Document Type Definition (DTD) in accordance with MIL-STD-40051-XX

b. Use of the DTD/stylesheets. The DTD referenced in this standard interprets the technical content and structure of the functional requirements contained in this standard.Its use is mandatory. Development of TMs is accomplished through the use of thisstandard, the DTD, and the guidance contained in MIL-HDBK-1222(latest version). Where possible and when available, Army developed and provided stylesheets shall be used. (See appendix B for sample CDRL).

c. Obtaining the DTD/Stylesheet. The DTD, stylesheets may be found at https://www.logsa.army.mil/mil40051/menu.cfm

2.11 Quality Assurance The Contractor, during the contract performance entirety, shall implement and maintain quality assurance and control on docu- mentation, materials (conforming and non-conforming), manufacturing operations and processes, test inspection equipment to ensure that functional and physical conformity of all products or services., in line with DFARS clause 52.246-2. The Contractor shall perform internal quality audits to verify the effectiveness of their quality approach. The Contractor shall develop and implement a quality assurance plan IAW ISO 9001 to ensure the accuracy and adequacy of the data and data products. The Gov- ernment reserves the right to review and comment on the Contractor’s plan and processes.

At any point during the contract performance, the Government has the right to review the contractor’s quality system to assess its effectiveness in meeting contractual requirements.

2.11.1 Quality Assurance Program Plan A Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) CDRL X IAW DI-QCIC-81794 and using MIL-Q-8720 as a guide, in line with appendix C of this SOW, shall be provided to describe how quality assurance will be addressed during this contract. (*Please see appendix B for a sample QA CDRL. Please see appendix C for the sample QAPP).

2.11.2 Responsibility for Inspection

Unless otherwise specified in the contract, the Contractor is responsible for the performance of all inspection requirements as specified herein. Except as otherwise specified in the contract, the Contractor may use his own or any other facilities suitable for the performance of the inspection requirements specified herein, unless disapproved by the Government. The Government reserves the right to perform any of the inspections set forth in the specification where such inspections are deemed necessary to assure supplies and services conform to prescribed requirements. Contractor shall ensure all sub-contractors meet the same quality requirements as Prime Contractor for the duration of this contract.

Access to Technical Data.

The Contractor shall provide in-plant access to Government personnel for all Technical and Logistics Data used in support of all contract efforts. The contractor shall provide copies of all documents generated through the course of the contract when requested.

*Note –DFARS Clause 52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies—Fixed Price allow for the rejection and corrective action of supplies under contract at the contractor’s expense. No DD-250 is accepted by the Government via Wide Area Work Flow(WAWF), therefore, payment is not transferred until the Contractor takes corrective action and the Government ac- cepts. There is also a clause for other contract types. For more information please see https://www.acquisition.gov/ sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_246.html


37

3 Illustrations The Contractor shall use Computer Graphics Metafile (CGM) or Scalable Vector Graphic (SVG) intelligent vector format for drawings created for technical publications. Line drawings, including exploded views, locator views, and detailed views, shall be used to support maintenance procedures and the repair parts and special tools list (RPSTL). Images of screen captures used to illustrate software tasks may be in either TIF or JPG format, or in line art if more effective for the user.

4 Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC) The Contractor shall prepare a maintenance allocation chart (MAC) IAW MIL-STD-40051-2 (most current version) for ETMs and IETMs shall be built to MIL-STD-40051-1. The MAC shall be derived from an LSA-004 report. The MAC shall be in a top-down, pyramidal breakdown sequence of the end item’s maintenance-significant assemblies, subassemblies, and modules by functional groups as defined in MIL-HDBK-1222 (most current version). The MAC shall contain all removal, repair, replacement, and related maintenance functional tasks that are contained within maintenance WPs. The MAC shall contain entries for all levels of maintenance through depot for both hardware and software maintenance tasks. For each repairable assembly or subassembly, the MAC shall identify the maintenance function to be performed, the level of responsibility for the function, the active repair time, and tools and test equipment necessary to perform the function. The MAC shall contain all items unless deletion has been authorized by the acquiring activity. FGCs shall be used as an indexing system IAW MIL-HDBK-1222 (most current version) and MIL-STD-40051-2 (most current version) for ETMs and MIL-STD-40051-1 for IETMs. (Requires CDRL using Data Item Description for Logistics Product Data DI-SESS-81758A ).

5 Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL) The Contractor shall prepare front matter, introduction, and illustrations for the RPSTL IAW MIL-STD-40051-2 (most current version) for ETMs and MIL-STD-40051-1 for IETMs. The RPSTL shall be derived from LSA-036 and LSA-030 reports. The Con- tractor shall prepare a separate figure for each breakdown of a repairable assembly. If an assembly is used more than once in a RPSTL, the Table of Contents shall refer to the first appearance of the illustration with the following statement, “SEE FIG- URE #XX FOR PARTS BREAKDOWN.” Illustrations shall be in CGM or SVG format. Reference-designated equipment and all electronic equipment and components, to include cable assemblies, will be identified by the applicable reference designator on the illustration of that particular functional group. Special tools shall be assigned a functional group 10 numbers higher than the last group listed in the MAC (must include CDRL for Logistics Product Data DI-SESS-81758A).

6 Changes to Technical Publications The Contractor shall incorporate all approved changes generated from DA Forms 2028, publication change requests (PCRs), Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), reported errors, and any other information or corrections, including updates to illustrations, MAC, and RPSTL, for each of the U.S. Army authenticated and published technical publications on the system. All updates, including Contractor-recommended changes, will be evaluated and approved by the Government before incorporation. The Contractor shall make the updates to the data of record (GFI-archived XML document instance of the published manual) sup- plied to the Contractor for each publication. The Contractor shall document the updates, using the appropriate change tags and attributes, within each XML document instance. The Contractor shall also update the subject technical publication document instances to the latest LOGSA XML DTD. The Contractor shall support verification events for the updates if required by the Gov- ernment. The Contractor shall participate in and support a Working-level Integrated Product Team (WIPT) to meet on a mutually-agreed schedule, and participate and support an In-Process Review (IPR) for review and approval of the updated publications. (This requires a CDRL, use Logistics Management Information (LMI) DID for Design Change Notification, DI-ALSS-81529).

*Note -Per the DoD Standard Practice: System Safety, MIL-STD-882E, ensure that hazard mitigation information are incorporated into the operator, maintenance, user, training, logistics, diagnostic manuals and plans.

38


7 Special Tools The contractor shall review the list of approved army tools located at https://www.aesip.army.mil/irj/portal and ensure they utilize the Army approved tools required to conduct Operation and Maintenance of the system prior to in- troducing a new tool to the Army inventory. The contractor shall ensure they abide by Army policy to reduce the logistics footprint to the field.

8 Technical Bulletins Technical Bulletin(s). The Contractor shall develop and deliver <fill in number> TB(s) IAW MIL-STD-38784.

Depot Maintenance Work Requirement(s). The Contractor shall develop and deliver <fill in number> interactive electronic DMWR(s) IAW MIL-STD-40051-1 or <fill in number> page-based DMWR(s) IAW MIL-STD-40051- DMWRs shall be prepared only for materiel for which depot maintenance functions are listed in the MAC.

Modification Work Order(s). The Contractor shall develop and deliver MWOs, as needed, IAW MIL-PRF-63002. MWOs shall be developed from Class I Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) to provide procedures for in- stalling hardware modifications to fielded Army equipment.

<INSERT OTHER PUBLICATION TYPES AS NEEDED, USING FORMAT FROM ABOVE>

9 COTS TMs — the following standard language may be used in the SOW

Source Data The contractor shall develop the technical manuals according to the following source data, which will either be developed by the contractor as part of this contract, or, if available, will be furnished to the contractor by the Government. Include a CDRL.

• Applicable ECOs/ECPs

• Existing manuals

• Existing digital files

• Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC)

• Repair Parts and Special Tools List (RPSTL)

• Target Audience Descriptions

• Style Guide

• Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Logic (the contractor shall base Preventive Maintenance Checks and Ser- vices (PMCS) and Pre-shop Analysis Operations on RCM logic).

• Front Matter “Boilerplate”

• Appendices “Boilerplate”


39

10 Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis The contractor shall conduct a Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) and provide a FMECA report as detailed in CDRL X and DI-SESS-81495A. Contractor shall use TA-HB-0007-1 as a guide. For data required to develop a FMECA; The contractor shall provide all data necessary for the Government to conduct a FMECA per CDRL X. and DI-SESS-81495A. (See appendix B for a sample CDRL to acquire data that will allow the Government to conduct the FMECA).

11 Level of Repair Analysis The contractor shall provide data that will allow the Government to conduct a Level of Repair Analysis per CDRL X and DI-SESS- 81495A. (See appendix B for a sample CDRL to acquire data that will allow the Government to conduct the LORA). The Govern- ment will provide an excel spreadsheet the Contractor is required to populate. For the purposes of the LORA the definition of an LRU is a subassembly, such as an engine, a receiver/transmitter unit, power supply, etc. that is removed from the system and replaced with a spare as the repair action. For the purposes of the LORA the definition of an SRU is a part that gets pulled out of the LRU for repair or replacement. For purposes of the LORA, examples of piece parts are resistors, capacitors, transistors, integrated circuits, chips, etc. Removal and replacement of piece parts results in the repair of a SRU.

12 Maintenance Task Analysis The Contractor shall conduct a Maintenance Task Analysis and associated report as detailed in CDRL X and DI-SESS-81495A.(See appendix B for a sample CDRL to acquire data that will allow the Government to conduct the MTA).

*Note—The above Statement of Work language is located through LOGSA in SYSPARS . You can download the template at https://www.logsa.army.mil/#/lec/syspars and tailor to your program.

////END OF STANDARD TM CONTRACT LANGUAGE////

STANDARD STATEMENT OF WORK LANGUAGE 13 LPD SOW Language Due to the level of tailoring required for individual weapon systems, it is imperative that the PSM contact their local ILSC Provi- sioning office in order to develop contract language for LPD. The PSM needs to pull together the ILSC Provisioner, Item Manger, Technical Writer and tie them in with the PM Systems Engineer and Maintenance Engineer in order to tailor LPD to meet the specific details of the program.

*Please see the TM and LPD Development Process Flow Chart (pages 10-11) as a guide for LPD common deliverables. 14 Documents and Data Items Used for LPD Deliverables

Government Documents DoD 4100.39-M: Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) Procedures Manual

Data Items: DI-SESS-81758A: Logistics Product Data

Commercial Documents: GEIA-STD-0007 - Logistics Product Data GEIA-HB-0007 - Logistics Product Data Handbook TA-HB-0007-1 - Handbook and Guide for Logistics Product Data Reports

15 TM and Provisioning Points of Contact by Command

AMCOM: For provisioning and TM assistance, please contact the AMCOM EPCO central email at: [email protected]

CECOM: For provisioning and TM assistance, please contact the CECOM EPCO central email at: [email protected]

TACOM: For provisioning assistance please contact the TACOM provisioning center at: [email protected]

TACOM: For TM assistance, please contact the TACOM EPCO central email at: [email protected]

JPEO CBD: Contact the PEO G4 Product Support Manager for Point of Contact. 16 Organic Product Support Analysis Support

Aberdeen Proving Ground CERDEC: For assistance with LORA development and training please email the APG CERDEC LORA central email at: [email protected]

Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC): For assistance developing an Organic FMECA and MTA please contact the TARDEC FMECA central email at: [email protected]

40

41

LIST OF REFERENCES (in order of appearance)

Acquisition Information Repository (AIR) https://www.dodtechipedia.mil/dodc/plugins/AIR/airdocuments.action

Military Occupational Specialty Website to view Programs of Instruction (POIs):

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

Logistics Product Data Handbook, GEIA-HB-0007 https://www.sae.org/standards/content/geiahb0007b/

DoD Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM) Guidebook http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD%20Reliability%20Availability%20and%20Maintainability%20(RAM)%20Guide.pdf

Designing and Developing Maintainable Products and Systems, MIL-HDBK-470A http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsSearch.aspx

Product Support Analysis, MIL HDBK 502A (search for “MIL-HDBK-502A”) https://www.assist.dla.mil

AESIP List of Government Approved Tools https://www.aesip.army.mil/irj/portal

Guidance for Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) Guidebook https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf

Guidebook for Acquiring Engineering Technical Services (ETS): Best Practices and Lessons Learned, Version 2.0 http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/A%20guide%20to%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20past%20performance%20informance.pdf

Guide to Collection and Use of Past Performance Information http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/A%20guide%20to%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20past%20performance%20informance.pdf

CPARS Guidance PDF dated 15 July 2018 https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf

Data Item Description search

https://www.assist.dla.mil

CPARS Guidance PDF

https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf

OASIS Contract information

https://www.gsa.gov/buying-selling/products-services/professional-services/one-acquisition-solution-for-integrated-services-oasis

DFARS Clause 52.246-2 Inspection of Supplies

https://www.acquisition.gov/sites/default/files/current/far/html/52_246.html

Database to obtain copies of the latest MIL-STD-40051

https://pubsweb.redstone.army.mil/PubsOnline/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fPubsOnline.

Database to view Document Type Definition Stylesheets per MIL-STD-40051 https://www.logsa.army.mil/mil40051/menu.cfm

Link to SYSPARS TM Guidebook Statement of Work template: https://www.logsa.army.mil/#/lec/syspars








42

APPENDICES

43

Appendix A—Sample rejection letter

44

Sample rejection letter continued

45

Appendix B Sample CDRLs

The below CDRL is an example of the TM Incremental Deliverable Submissions

46

This CDRL is an example of the XML Deliverable Submissions

47

This CDRL requests the data required for the Government to perform the Level of Repair Analysis

48

This CDRL requests the Data required for the Government to perform the Level of Repair Analysis

49

This CDRL requests the Data required for the Government to perform the Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis

50

This CDRL is an example tailored Maintenance Task Analysis

51

This CDRL is an example Quality Assurance Program Plan

52

Sample Test Incident Report CDRL

53

Appendix C— Quality Assurance Program Plan

54

Quality Assurance Program Plan continued

55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63


64

Appendix D— Policy Memo referencing Manufacturer’s Name

65

Clarification to Policy Memo User Representatives for TM Verifications

66

Clarification to Policy Memo User Representatives for TM Verifications Continued...