Date Briefer’s Name Briefer’s Org Code Briefer’s Phone # Briefer’s Email Program logo here Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications, Computers

DateBriefer’s Name

Briefer’s Org CodeBriefer’s Phone #

Briefer’s Email

Programlogohere

Program Executive OfficeCommand, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (PEO C4I)

Revised Sample Brief Template v2

Sample: Statement D: Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DOD) and U. S. DOD contractors only. Other requests must be referred to PEO C4I or the SPAWAR Office of Congressional and Public Affairs (SPAWAR 00P).

2

Programlogohere

Key Stakeholders

Name Organization

APM

MDA

DT Coordinator

COMOPTEVFOR (OTD)

COMOPTEVFOR (OTC)

CNO (N912)

CNO (N-sponsor)

JITC

DOT&E (if required)

Others (as required)

-PMW, SYSCOMS, Service

3

ProgramlogoherePurpose of Briefing

4

ProgramlogohereBriefing Outline

5

Programlogohere

Program Overview

• ACAT

• Program Phase

• Milestone or Decision that this phase of test will support

• Mission

• Inventory Objective (quantities)

6

Programlogohere

ADM Exit Criteria andAction Item Status

R Required at this time, but not completed

G Completed

Y In progress & on schedule

Program Information StatusApproved

DateComments

ADM Exit Criteria

ADM Exit Criteria 1

ADM Exit Criteria 2

ADM Exit Criteria N

Action Items

Action Items 1

Action Items 2

Action Items N

7

ProgramlogohereConcept/Requirement

8

Programlogohere

System OverviewComponent/System Description

9

Programlogohere

System OverviewCapability Enabler

10

Programlogohere

Deployed/MobileUnits

BASE

IMAFISC

PierConnections

CLINIC

TRNG CENHQ

TELEPORT/STEPLong Haul (DISN & Commercial)

TRAININGCENTER

USN/USMCLOGISTIC BASE

NAVALAMPHIBIOUS

BASE

NOC

BASE

MC AIRSTATION

End-to-End Connectivity

NMCI atthe Pier

Development StrategyEnd-to-End Capability

11

Programlogohere

Program OverviewAccomplishments/History

12

Programlogohere

Program OverviewPrevious Guidance

(if Required)

13

Programlogohere

Acquisition Coordination Team (ACT)• The following (Program Name) ACT members have been briefed on the program status and concur with the fielding of (Program Name).

Functional Area Name Organization Telephone EmailProgram Manager VariesAcquisition PM VariesProject Engineer VariesResource Sponsor VariesRequirements Sponsor VariesContracts Mr. David Ryan SPAWAR 02 (858) 537-0314 [email protected]

Contracts Mr. Mark Lopez SPAWAR 02 (619) 524-7168 [email protected]

Contracts Ms. Marcia Rutledge SPAWAR 02 (619) 524-7201 [email protected]

Legal Laura Larkin SPAWAR 00C-1 (619) 524-7060 [email protected]

Operational Test Director VariesAcquisition Management John Metzger PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7652 [email protected]

Technical Director Charlie Suggs PEO C4I-TD (619) 524-7237 [email protected]

T&E Manager John Hartford PEO C4I-AM (858) 537-0410 [email protected]

T&E Requirements Coordinator LCDR Jason Small OPNAV, N912C3 (703) 601-1733 [email protected]

PEO Installations Susan Senese PEO C4I (858) 537-0620 [email protected]

Fleet Modernization Ruth Youngs Lew PEO C4I (858) 537-0613 [email protected]

PEO Logistics Sean Zion PEO C4I (858) 537-0253 [email protected]

Manpower and Budget/ Susie Drew/Program BFM Program BFMManpower and Budget Christa LeBoeuf PEO C4I (619) 524-7599 [email protected]

Comptroller Gregory Hansford SPAWAR 01 (619) 524-7139 [email protected]

Cost Analysis Mourad Yacoub SPAWAR 01-6 (619) 524-7160 [email protected]

Command Information Officer Jacqueline Todd SPAWAR 08 (619) 524-7063 [email protected]

Command Information Office Organizational Mailbox SPAWAR 08 N/A [email protected]

Counterintelligence Kurt Fabrizio SPAWAR 00-NCIS (619) 524-7152 [email protected]

Counterintelligence Todd Grantham SPAWAR 00-NCIS (619) 524-7446 [email protected]

SPAWAR/NFESC

System Security/Information Assurance

Paul Schoberg PEO C4I (619) 524-7341 [email protected]

Spectrum Management Dave Southworth SPAWAR (619) 553-3248 [email protected]

Interoperability Certification/

Information Support PlansManpower Analysis Janet Garrington SPAWAR 04H (858) 537-8950 [email protected]

Security Pat Varney SPAWAR 08 (858) 537 8898 [email protected]

Human Systems Integration Carol Robinson SPAWAR 05-5 (858) 537-8907 [email protected]

C4I Technical Authority Dave Murray SPAWAR 05-TA (858) 537-0212 [email protected]

C4I Technical Authority Support Staff

Samantha Bodley SPAWAR 05-TA (858) 537-8885 [email protected]

Roger Renner PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7840 [email protected]

Mark McLain PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7748 [email protected]

Jamie Roth PEO C4I-AM (619) 524-7880 [email protected]

Jakob McLean PEO C4I-AM (858) 537-0367 [email protected]

AMO Support Staff

CAPT Steve McPhillips

PEO C4I (619) 524-7182 [email protected]

PEO C4I (619) 524-7359 [email protected]

Env., Safety and Health Jerry Olen (858) 537-0255 [email protected]

14

Programlogohere

Program Information and Documentation Status

R Required at this time, but does not exist B Requires development or updating w/in 12 months

O Required at this time and under development/update G Current, with all required approvals

Y In approval cycle. Expected Date in Comments NR Not required. Rationale in Comments

Program Information StatusApproved

DatePlanned

DateComments

ACAT Designation LetterAcquisition Decision MemorandumAcquisition Program BaselineAcquisition StrategyAffordability AssessmentAnalysis of AlternativesCAIV Objectives CDD/CPDClinger-Cohen ComplianceEnv. Safety & Health EvaluationEVMIA StrategyInformation Support Plan (ISP)InfoSec Certification and AccreditationInitial Capabilities DocumentJITC Interoperability CertificationLCCE/Economic Analysis/ICEIndependent Logistics AssessmentLow Rate Initial Prod (LRIP) DecisionNavy Training System Plan (NTSP)OP Test PlanPost-Deployment Performance ReviewProgram Protection PlanRisk Assessment Safe for Test CertificationTechnology Development Strategy (TDS)Test & Evaluation Master PlanTest Results (DT&E/OT&E/FOT&E)

15

Programlogohere

[insert program name]Program Overview Chart

DATE OF REPORT: MM/DD/YYYY

PM / Sponsor Cost Schedule PerformanceProgrammaticCompliance

LogisticsContract

Execution

Contact Info hereContact Info here

Description:Program Start Date: MM / YY[Insert program description here]

Joint or International:[Insert joint or International details]

Key Performance ParametersKPP Objective Threshold DemoOP Avail .90 .90 .98S/W Reliability 200 hrs 200 hrs 1000 hrsS/W Mean 5 sec 5 sec 3.2 secxxxx x x x

Acquisition ObjectivesQuantity 650IOC 12 / 99Target Price (unit) $Various$M (FY XX) $610.12

Contractor DataContractor Litton DSDValue / Type $NA / GSAStart / Complete APR97 / APR03

Contractor XXXValue / Type $XX / XXXStart / Complete XXX / XXX

Cost Data ($ in M)*Cost Objective Threshold Current Est.R&D 0 0 0Proc 300.3 300.3 380O&S 250.5 250.5 276.1xxxx x x x

* Values from last approved APB

(IT) ACAT Level:MDA:

Budget Source:

OverallVolatility

Contract Execution Ratings:G= CPI/SPI .95 or >Y= CPI/SPI .85 -.94R = CPI/SPI < .85

APPR $M Subhead Project Total PY CY BY BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4 To Complete TotalRDT&E,N - OPN,P - Qty - OPN, I - Qty - OMN - Spares - SCN - OCF - Total -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OSD T&E Oversight: Y/N

SCHEDULEFY by QuartersMilestones

TestingDevelopmentProductionInstallation

R&D / Studies

FY 00I II III IV

FY 01I II III IV

FY 02I II III IV

FY 03I II III IV

FY 04I II III IV

FY 05I II III IV

FY 06I II III IV

FY 07I II III IV

201

CDR

3 3

SVR

MS IIIDMS-IIB&C

FOT&E

LRIP

OPEVAL

5

IOC MSD FOC

Microsoft Word Document

16

Programlogohere

Insert Program Name: ADNSCurrent FY: XXXX

INC II Budget:(Most Current Budget) * See Note 1Then-Year $K

APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete TotalRDT&E 428 200 - - - - - 628 OPN 21,128 17,091 12,500 3,691 - - - 54,410 OMN 1,461 3,692 4,913 5,392 5,141 4,760 3,551 28,910

Total 23,017 20,983 17,413 9,083 5,141 4,760 3,551 83,948

QTY Inc II Procurement 38/4 38 9 11 100 QTY Inc II Installation 9/4 53 23 11 100

* See Note 2Then-Year $K

APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete Total

RDT&E 428 200 - - - - 628

OPN 20,673 19,373 11,403 4,494 - - - 55,943 OMN 1,461 3,692 4,913 5,392 5,141 4,760 3,551 28,910

Total 22,562 23,265 16,316 9,886 5,141 4,760 3,551 85,481

DELTA (Budget Minus LCCE Feb-05)Then-Year $K

APPN PY FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 To Complete TotalRDT&E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - OPN 455 (2,282) 1,097 (803) 0 0 0 (1,533) OMN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Total 455 (2,282) 1,097 (803) 0 0 0 (1,533)

Affordability by Increment

Notes

1. FY05 includes 11 LRIP systems and 27 Increment II Upgrade Kits which are on CODE B hold pending FRP

2. Target Inventory Objective of 110 systems

* Current procurement and install schedule includes 96 ships and 4 shore sites

* Remaining 10 systems planned for FY09 not shown in table, Program direction expects INC III installation to begin and INC II to end in FY09

17

ProgramlogohereSPAWAR 01-6 Cost Risk

Rating RISK

1.0-2.0 LOW

>2.0-3.0 MODERATE

>3.0-4.0 HIGH

>4.0-5.0 VERY HIGH

Cost-Weighted RatingRating Methods Rating Data

1 The basic method used to perform this analysis is exceptionally well documented and time tested; one or more other techniques have been used to verify the estimate provided.

1 Very complete, well-authenticated, highly relevant data, such as recent contractor actual costs, official catalog prices, etc. have been used.

2 The basic method used to perform this analysis is well documented, but no double-check or authentication has been possible.

2 The data used generally are relevant and from a reputable source; however, they are incomplete, preliminary, or not completely current.

3 The basic method used to perform this analysis has been documented, but has not been widely used or approved.

3 The data used have been obtained from official or standard sources; however, notable inconsistencies, lack of currency, or gaps in data reduce the confidence in the estimate.

4 A highly arbitrary method of analysis has been used.

4 The data used to make the estimate are highly suspect, or doubtful relevance, very sparse in quantity, and characterized by major inconsistencies.

5 The analysis is almost pure guesswork, and little or no confidence can be placed in it.

5 An almost total lack of current, reliable, relevant data makes the cost estimate completely uncertain.

Source: FAA Life Cycle Cost Handbook, 3 June 2002

Two Digit Confidence Index

Two Digit Confidence Index *METHOD. DATA METHOD. DATA

SCORE 1.64 1.48 1.54 1.33

TOTAL LCC PROGRAM COSTS ONLY

* Confidence Index based on weighted averages

18

Programlogohere

Cost as an Independent Variable(CAIV)

19

ProgramlogohereAnalysis of Alternatives

KPP ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4

KPP 1

KPP 2

KPP 3

KPP 4

LCC ($TYM)Then Year Millions

$ $ $ $

20

Programlogohere

• Source Documents:– Typical source documents that effect strategy are ICD/CDD/CPD,

AoA, etc.

• Approach: Single Step or Evolutionary – Each increment requires a MS C and if development a MS B.

These could be supported by one CDD containing all capabilities and multiple CPDs supporting each increment of useable capability. Each increment could use the same CDD (revalidated each time) for the MS B and would have a separate CPD for the MS C. This method supports Evolutionary acquisition, the preferred approach. See CJCSI 3170 for other Evolutionary approached

Acquisition Strategy (Requirements and Approach)

21

Programlogohere

Acquisition Strategy (Program Structure)

Concept Decision

Milestone A

RFP Development

Milestone B

Contract Award

Development Test/OA

Milestone C/LRIP Decision

Operational Test

IOC

FRP Decision

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

22

Programlogohere

Acquisition Strategy (Business Approach)

Current ContractsProgram Product or Service Total Contract ValueCompeted Contract Type Period of Performance Approved AP

Y or N FFP 10/1/03 - 9/30/04 Y or N

New Procurement Actions• Proposed [name of effort] Contract

– Competitive or Sole Source (if sole source provide justification– Contract Type:– Estimated contract value: – Period of Performance:– Acquisition Objectives:– Estimated Contract Award:– Status of Acquisition Plan:

23

Programlogohere

Contractor Name, Contract Number, Contract Type, Short Contract Title

Contract EV Metrics and Performance Projections

YSolvency (Provide

comments in notes page)

PEO and Program Manager/PMS-XXX, Program Acronym, ACAT XX, Date Reported

Microsoft Excel Worksheet

Cost Schedule Variance Trends

($30,000)

($25,000)

($20,000)

($15,000)

($10,000)

($5,000)

$0

$5,000

J-98

J-98

A-98

S-98

O-98

N-98

D-98

J-99

F-99

M-99

A-99

M-99

J-99

J-99

A-99

S-99

O-99

N-99

D-99

J-00

F-00

M-00

A-00

M-00

J-00

J-00

A-00

S-00

O-00

N-00

D-00

Do

lla

rs i

n T

ho

us

an

ds

Cost Variance ($1,460) Sched Variance ($809) Mgmt Reserve $1,968 10% Thresholds PM VAC ($24,000) CONTR VAC ($22,500)

START

COMPLETE

CPI:

SPI:EVM Gold Card

24

ProgramlogohereCPARS/IPARS/Award Fee Matrix

Contractor PM Name/Gov’t PM Name Date of Review: ddmmmyy

Contractor:

Program:

Contract Number:

Item: (CPAR, IPAR or AF) AF CPAR AF AF IPAR CPAR IPAR AF IPAR IPAR IPAR CPAR

Period Ending: (Mmm YY) Jan 02 Apr 02 Jul 02 Jan 03 Mar 03 Apr 03 Jun 03 Jul 03 Sep 03 Dec 03 Mar 04 Apr 04

Months Covered: (NR) 6 12 6 6 3 12 3 6 3 3 3 12

Areas to Evaluate

a. Technical (Quality of Product) EXC EXC EXC EXC

(1) Product Performance VG VG VG VG

(2) Systems Engineering SAT SAT SAT SAT

(3) Software Engineering MARG MARG MARG MARG

(4) Logistics Support/Sustainment UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

(5) Product Assurance EXC EXC EXC EXC

(6) Other Technical Performance EXC EXC EXC EXC

b. Schedule SAT SAT SAT SAT

c. Cost Control MARG MARG MARG MARG

d. Management UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT UNSAT

(1) Management Responsiveness EXC EXC EXC EXC

(2) SubContract Management VG VG VG VG

(3) Program Mgmt and Other Mgmt SAT SAT SAT SAT

e. Other Areas MARG MARG MARG MARG

(1) Communications EXC EXC EXC EXC

(2) Support to Government Tests EXC EXC EXC EXC

Award Fee Percentage: 85% 70% 90% 84%

N00000-00-C-0000

Contract Start Date:

Estimated Completion Date:

MMM YY

MMM YY

((Contractor Name))

((Program Name))

25

Programlogohere

LOGISTICS SUPPORT

(Compliance with DoD/SECNAV 5000 series and policy documents)

Logistics Requirement Compliance Exception Notes

Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA)

GREEN/YELLOW/RED Rating?

When completed?

Navy Training System Plan (NTSP)

NTSP completed? Sustainment Training in Place? YES/NO

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Matl. Shortages (DMSMS)

DMSMS Process/Tool used to ID Obsolescence challenges?

YES/NO

Unique Identification (UID) Policy implementation

DFARS Clause 252.211-7003 in contract/contract mods?

YES/NO

Digital Product and Technical Data

Manuals, Drawings, Illustrations available in approved digital

formats?

YES/NO

Human Systems Integration (HSI)

HSI factors addressed in AS, SEP, and NTSP?

YES/NO

Performance Based Logistics (PBL) implementation

PBL strategy considered and decision documented in BCA?

YES/NO

26

Programlogohere

Program AssessmentInstallation Readiness

Place the assessment rating

icon here. Delete the remaining.

Place the assessment rating

icon here. Delete the remaining.

Afloat ShipClass/Shore System FY QTY APPN

Total Procurement

($)Total Install

($)

ECP/ (EC or FCB)

Install Documentation

StatusAfloat - SCD/ILS

CertShore -

WorkScope/FRCB

System Draw ing

Status ICD or IRD (if applicable)

Certif icationSSIL/P P L Status

DITSCAP Info

IATO/ATO Status

AfloatExample

SystemName FY07 20 OPN 200K 20K 100%

ECP XXX

SCD Phase I - ApprovedILS Cert - Approved Approved

IATOApproved None

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

ShoreExample

SystemName FY07 10 80%

Workscope - CompletedFRCB - Approved Approved

ATOApproved None

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

Fielding Issues

Budget Installs Thru FYDPBy Fiscal Year

% of Budgeted Installs in

Spider

Install Readiness Status

Assessment

27

Programlogohere

Software MaturitySoftware Trouble Reports (STRs)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

- 360Days

- 270Days

- 180Days

- 90Days

- 45Days

Present

PRI 1's

PRI 2's

PRI 3's

PRI 4's

Others

S/W BuildVersion x.xx

# of STRs

28

Programlogohere

Software MaturityPriority 1 STR’s

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2/1/

2001

4/1/

2001

6/1/

2001

8/1/

2001

10/1

/200

1

12/1

/200

1

2/1/

2002

4/1/

2002

6/1/

2002

8/1/

2002

10/1

/200

2

12/1

/200

2

2/1/

2003

4/1/

2003

6/1/

2003

8/1/

2003

10/1

/200

3

12/1

/200

3

2/1/

2004

4/1/

2004

6/1/

2004

8/1/

2004

10/1

/200

4

12/1

/200

4

Pri-1 (total) Pri-1 (closed)

29

Programlogohere

2

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1

1 1 1

0 0

0 0 0 0

1

1 1 1

1

0

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0 0 0 0

0

0 0 0

0

0

0 0 0 00

1

2

3

4

5

SP

New

Analysis

Asgn - 11.1.2

TEST

Software MaturityPriority 1 STR Status

30

Programlogohere

[Combat capability]

Threshold Objective

[C4I Interoperability, (Strategic, Theater, Force Coord.)]

[Endurance]

[Cost]

[Manning]

[Sustained Speed]

KPP Compliance

31

ProgramlogohereNESI SUMMARY

Technical Evaluation Summary

Count ScoringNo Evaluation

No Compliance (0)

Low Compliance (1)

Some Compliance (2)

Complete Compliance (4)

Waived

Waived (Registered)

131 Total Tests

Evaluation Count

Total Score

2.26 Mean Score

Best Possible Total Score

Percent of Best Possible Score

Acquisition Evaluation Summary

Count ScoringNo Evaluation

No Compliance (0)

Low Compliance (1)

Some Compliance (2)

Complete Compliance (4)

Waived

Waived (Registered)

35 Total Tests

Evaluation Count

Total Score

3.31 Mean Score

Best Possible Total Score

Percent of Best Possible Score

32

ProgramlogohereNESI Status

0

1

2

3

4

Acq

uis

itio

n

0 1 2 3 4

Technical

No Compliance

Complete Compliance

Some Compliance

Low Compliance

The “Mean Score” from each summary chart automatically

creates the Maturity level.

The “Mean Score” from each summary chart automatically

creates the Maturity level.

33

Programlogohere

COI Assessment(Based on DT Results)*

COI Risk

Effectiveness

Capacity (example)

Survivability (example)

Joint Interoperability (Net Ready)

Etc.

Suitability

Reliability

Maintainability

Operational Availability

Logistic Supportability

Compatibility

Interoperability

Training

Human Factors

Safety

Documentation

* For DRR, assess likelihood of achieving COI Thresholds

34

Programlogohere

DT Recommendation

35

Programlogohere

Developmental Testing &Evaluation (DT&E) Results

Parameter Threshold Objective Result/Assessment

KPP’s

KPP 1

KPP 2

MOE’s/MOS’s

MOE 1

MOE 2

MOS 1

MOS 2

CTP’s

CTP 1

CTP 2

36

Programlogohere

OT Scope of Test

37

ProgramlogohereT&E Exceptions

• Waivers

• Deferrals

38

Programlogohere

Interoperability(Net Ready)

39

Programlogohere

PEO C4I Review Checklist

40

Programlogohere

PEO C4I Review Checklist

41

Programlogohere

PEO C4IReview Checklist

42

Programlogohere

PEO C4IReview Checklist

43

Programlogohere

Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist

Navy Criteria for Certification: The following criteria for certification of readiness applies to all OT&E for all Navy Programs (EOA, OA, IOT&E, FOT&E). The program manager with the concurrence of the OTA, may tailor criteria listed below ( with the exception of item #1). The MDA may add criteria as necessary to determine the readiness for OT.

Yes No N/A Approval

Date

1. The TEMP is current and approved. OT prior to Milestone B shall have

an approved T&E Strategy (TES).

2. DT&E results indicate DT objectives and performance thresholds

identified in the TEMP have been satisfied for the ORD/CDD/CPD, as

appropriate.

a. If no, are they projected to be at system maturity, and do the results

indicate that the system will perform successfully in OT&E?

b. In addition, will they meet the criteria for approval at the next program

decision milestone (e.g., full rate production on completion of

IOT&E)?

3. All significant areas of risk have been identified and corrected, or

mitigation pans are in place.

4. DT&E data and reports have been provided to the OTA not less than

30 days prior to the commencement of OT, unless otherwise agreed to

by the OTA.

5. Entrance criteria for OT identified in the TEMP have been satisfied.

44

Programlogohere

Program Manger’sOTRR Checklist (con’t)

Yes No N/A Approval

Date

6. System operating, maintenance, and training documents have been

provided to the OTA 30 days prior to the OTRR, unless otherwise

agreed to by the OTA.

7. Logistic support, including spares, repair parts, and support/ground

support equipment is available as documented.

a. Is there any logistics support which will be used during OT&E, but will

not be used with the system when fielded (e.g., contractor provided

depot level maintenance)?

8. The OT&E manning of the system is adequate in numbers, rates,

ratings, and experience level to simulate normal operating conditions.

9. Training has been completed and is representative of that planned for

fleet units.

10. All resources required to execute OT including instrumentation,

simulators, targets, and expendables have been identified and are

available.

11. Models, simulators, and targets have been accredited for intended

use.

45

Programlogohere


Yes No N/A Approval

Date

12. The system provided for OT&E, including software, is production

representative. Differences between the system provided for test and

production configuration shall be addressed at the OTRR.

13. Threat information (e.g., threat system characteristics and

performance, electronic countermeasures, force levels, scenarios, and

tactics), to include security classification, required for OT&E is

available to satisfy OTA test planning.

14. The system is safe to use as planned in the concept of employment.

Any restrictions to safe employment are stated.

a. The environmental, safety, and occupational health (ESOH) program

requirements have been satisfied.

b. The system complies with Navy/Marine Corps environmental, safety,

and occupational health/hazardous waste requirements, where

applicable.

c. Environmental, safety, and occupational health/hazardous waste

reviews and reports have been provided to the OTA.

46

Programlogohere


Yes No N/A Approval

Date

15. All software is sufficiently mature and stable for fleet introduction.

a. All software Trouble Reports are documented with appropriate impact

analyses. There are no outstanding Trouble Reports that:

1) Prevent the accomplishment of an essential capability.

2) Jeopardize safety, security, or other requirement designated "critical“.

3) Adversely affect the accomplishment of an essential capability and no

work-around solution is known, or

4) Adversely affect technical, cost, or schedule risks to the project or to

life-cycle support of the system, and no work-around solution is

known.

16. For software qualification testing (SQT), a Statement of Functionality

that describes the software capability has been provided to the OTA

and CNO (N091).

47

Programlogohere


Yes No N/A Approval

Date

17. For programs with interoperability requirements (e.g., NR-KPP

ORD/CDD/CPD), appropriate authority has approved the ISP.

a. JITC concurs that program interoperability demonstrated in

development has progressed sufficiently for the phase of OT to be

conducted.

18. Approval of spectrum certification compliance and spectrum

supportability has been obtained.

19. For IT systems, including NSS, the system has been assigned a MAC

and Confidentiality Level.

a. System certification accreditation documents, including the SSAA and

the Authority to Operate (ATO) or Interim Authority to Operate (IATO),

has been provided to the OTA.

20. Other(s)…

48

Programlogohere


Yes No N/A Approval

Date

21. For aircraft programs, there are no unresolved NAVAIRSYSCOM

deficiencies that affect:

a. Airworthiness

b. Capability to accomplish the primary or secondary mission(s)

c. Safety of the aircrew/operator/maintainer

d. Integrity of the system or an essential subsystem

e. Effectiveness of the operator as an essential subsystem

49

Programlogohere

e

LIK

EL

IHO

OD

e

d

c

b

a

CONSEQUENCEdcba

HighMedium

Low Medium

Risk Advisory Board:[Mr. X, PMA xxx][Ms. Y, XYZ Corp][Ms. Z, DASN YY]

• •

•

• A brief description of Issue # 4 and rationale for its rating.

• Approach to remedy/mitigation


• Approach to remedy/mitigation• A brief description of Issue # 3 and rationale for its rating.




















•

• •

Acronyms:[IMA= Intermediate Maintenance Activity]

Program Risk Assessment

Acrobat Document

50

ProgramlogohereKey Issues

No further action required

Significant interest outside Program

Cannot be solved within the Program

Legend

Issue Due Date Response Status

51

Programlogohere

Other Decision Factors and Challenges

• [List as appropriate]

• Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready for OT&E on [date]

• Example: Acquisition Coordination Team, Chaired by [insert name] concurred that [insert program name] is ready to enter SDD Phase

52

ProgramlogoherePM Assessment

53

ProgramlogohereRecommendations