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

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

Standardizes the TM development process which decreases the cost, time, and manpower required

to perform TM verifications.

Increases partnering between the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and government Subject

Matter Experts (SMEs) required to guide the OEM in the government unique TM development

processes.

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

deliverables.

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

TMs.

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

Purpose This Guidebook standardizes the TM development process for both the government and industry and

provides the PSM with a tool that:

Clarifies roles and responsibilities.

Establishes procedures from contracting through development and review that enable quality,

usable, and accurate TMs at fielding.

Documents a logistics product development process that enables organic support by First Unit

Equipped (FUE).

Provides standard statement of work language that can be modified and tailored to support unique

program requirements.

Product Support Analyses (PSA) specifications and standards to improve the quality of Logistics

Product Data (LPD) development which is the building block of the TM.

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

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

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

Oversight The DASA APL will coordinate with Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) and Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the Logistics Data Analysis Center (LDAC) to track the percent of programs that are successful in developing quality, usable, and accurate TMs to support validation, enable cost savings, and reduce Soldier requirements during verification. PMs will be tasked via an already established ASA(ALT) Acquisition Metrics Data Call (currently pushed out by ASA(ALT)—DASCs) to report quarterly on verification plan results. PMs will submit the verification plan results to the Life Cycle Management Command Equipment Publications Office (EPCO) who will submit all validation and verification plans and reports to the DA Electronic Manual Validation and Verification Plan Repository at: https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/department-of-army-electronic-manual-validation-and-verification-plan-repository

Roles DASA(APL):

Oversight of PSMs and Acquisition Logistics Policy. PSM:

Responsible for developing and delivering quality TMs.

TM and LPD development to include, initial funding, source selection evaluation criteria, statement of

work development, contract monitoring, deliverable review and the Integrated Product Team (IPT)

required to develop the TM documents.

Responsible for establishing the PSM IPT in order to support the development of the SOW and review of

all deliverables.

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

Equipment Publications Certification Officer (EPCO) — ensures streamlined contract language to meet

Army Publishing requirements. Participates in the PSM IPT TM contract development and deliverable

review process. Approves the verification of the technical manual in order to authenticate through LDAC

and Army Publishing Directorate (APD).

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

the TM verification event, is a key member of the PSM IPT contract development and deliverable review

and concurrence process.

For in-house government developed TMs, the technical writer coordinates development, updates and

changes over the life cycle of the TM.

Coordinates review by safety and environmental offices.

AMC LDAC:

Coordinates directly with the EPCOs.

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

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

printing.

Loads the TM onto 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 logistics, and maintenance training.

Key member of the PSM IPT and provides concurrence on TMs during verification, maintainability

assessments, and maintenance evaluations.

User representatives fall under various TRADOC organizations.

o TRADOC Capabilities Manager (TCM).

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

Training Representative) and Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) Division (Maintenance and

Logistics Soldier Representative) .

ATEC:

Independent evaluator for suitability and member of the PSM IPT.

PART I - TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE AND QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS 1. TM Incremental Development Timeline and PSM IPT Activities 1.1. Determine TM Development Strategy:

Step One: In order to determine which manual type is relevant to a program, the PSM needs to coordinate with the user representative, technical writer and EPCO to discuss the program’s unique characteristics and product support strategy. The PSM, user representative, technical writer, and EPCO

will review Army Regulation (AR) 25-30, paragraphs 3-25 through 3-29 to determine which manual type is applicable to their program. The three types of manuals a program may pursue are:

Department of Army (DA) Authenticated TMs: Army technical manuals that meet all format and matrix

requirements of the DoD Military Standard for Technical Manual Preparation, MIL-STD-40051. This

Standard establishes the technical content requirements and mandatory style and format requirements

for the preparation of paper and digital TMs.

DA-authenticated Commercial-of-the-Shelf (COTS) TMs: Existing commercial manuals that are acquired

for Army use and will be supplemented in some way to meet Army needs. These manuals will be assessed

against the requirements of the Performance Specification: Evaluation and Preparation of Supplemental

Data, MIL-PRF-32216A which provides criteria for evaluation of COTS manuals for acceptance. The MIL-

PRF also provides requirements for preparing supplemental data to COTS manuals. A COTS technical

manual receives a TM number and is verified and authenticated by the government.

Manufacturer Manuals: Existing manufacturer’s manuals acquired for Army use with no supplementation

or modification required. This type of manual is not referred to as technical manual or technical

equipment publication (these manuals do not receive a TM number). Further, commercial manuals will

not be verified or authenticated by the government.

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

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

Unmodified and Unauthenticated Manufacturer Manuals. AR 25-30, paragraph 3-29, outlines the criteria that are applicable to those ACAT III COTS programs that are not modified in any way, have low density, and are low cost. These program types are strictly COTS programs where no modification to the equipment is required. The system can be procured commercially and the OEM manual can be used to operate and maintain the system. Manufacturer manuals identified for these specific ACAT III programs require evaluation to determine whether they meet the safety (“System Safety Review”) and technical content (“Instructional Gaps”) needs of the soldiers. Manufacturer’s manuals for these programs will not

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

Outliers: The use of the policy above as right and left boundaries allow the PSM IPT flexibility to tailor TM development, within those boundaries, in order to align with the unique requirements of the individual program and the program’s product support strategy. Some programs may not fall neatly into one category. For example, if the program is a modified COTS system with low density, contractor logistics supported, and not provisioned using LMP, even though it is a modified COTS TM, it may not require a verification, validation and authentication. Likewise, a system could technically be a COTS system, however, has high density, is high dollar value, and will be provisioned using LMP; therefore, paragraph 3-29 will not apply. The key is early discussions with the user representative, technical writer, and the EPCO, in order to determine an appropriate path forward.

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

Step Two: Document the TM development strategy within the Life Cycle Sustainment Plan (LCSP).

Establish the PSM IPT and begin to draft the contract language tailored to the specific TM development

strategy (MIL-STD, authenticated COTS TM, or manufacturer manual).

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

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

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

Figure 2 on page 11 depicts a visual guide for the PSM IPT incremental review process and timelines. Timelines are a guide and PMs are encouraged to tailor the review timelines to meet program needs. The goal is to ensure the PSM IPT has enough time to review the deliverables in order to address issues of quality, accuracy, and usability. Larger, more complex programs may require a longer review. Smaller and less complex programs may require a shorter review period. The concept is applicable to all programs.

Figure 3 on page 1 depicts a visual guide for the incremental contract deliverable review phases and process unique to a rapid development COTs/NDI program. The below table is an example of the key members of the PSM IPT. PSMs on Acquisition Category (ACAT) II and III programs where staff levels are light are encouraged to coordinate with the Program Executive Officer (PEO) G4 and LCMC to “borrow” SMEs from other programs where staff levels exist and team members have availability. The full PSM IPT may not be required for those programs whose manuals will not be verified, validated or authenticated.

Table 1: PSM IPT Members

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

Team Role, Responsibility, and Authority

Products & Metrics

PSM Supportability IPT

& Quality Assurance (QA) Team

Contract Development and QA process for Technical Manual

Development

Products: Technical Manual Development PSA, LPD, -10, -13&P TM, MAC, RPSTL

Chair Mr. John Smith PM X Product Support Manager

Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Validated & Verified TM, PSA and LPD

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

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

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

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

PM or CERDEC Maintenance Engineer

Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Authenticated TM, PSA, LPD

LCMC ILSC or PM Lead Technical writer

Contract dev. & QA for all deliverables

Authenticated TM

LCMC ILSC Provisioner Contract dev & QA LPD & LSA & TM

NSNs LMP and DLA

OEM Contract execution/Developer/QA TM development

LCMC ILSC Equipment Specialist

QA for TM deliverables

TM QA

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

TM Concurrence

LCMC ILSC Item Manager

QA LPD LSA and TM deliverables

Provisioning, NSNs, RPSTL

*TRADOC ILS and SID POC QA TM deliverables

Concurrence Sheets

ATEC Feedback on TIRs, Independent Evaluator for suitability

Suitability Statement

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

Validated & Verified TM

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

PSA & LPD review

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

Figure 1: TM Flow chart Developmental Program

Figure 2: TM Flow chart PSM IPT Quality Review Process

2. PSM IPT Quality Review Process How Does the PSM IPT Review the TM and LPD?

The PSM, his/her lead logistician, technical writer and the program’s lead systems engineer will need to ensure the TM deliverables line up with the drawing package. This cannot be accomplished accurately without the participation of the system engineer. Note: PSM = Participative Leader. But… It takes a TEAM. PSM IPT 30 percent, 70 percent and 100 percent Step by Step Review:

1. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) sends the deliverable to the PSM in line with the Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS) and contract deliverable schedule. The PSM establishes a review IPT.

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

3. The lead logistician, systems/program engineer and technical writer, will check the complete deliverable

for accuracy and usability, as written, against the drawing packages to include schematics, figures, etc.

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

formatting issues (diagrams, schematics, work package development, formatting, etc.) and insert redline

comments as necessary.

5. The Provisioner will coordinate with the PM logistician, equipment specialist, technical writer and

engineers as well as LCMC engineers to review the LPD data for accuracy and completeness.

6. The TRADOC/CASCOM SID and ILS team members will evaluate the TM for overall accuracy, content

usability as written, diagrams, schematics, etc. (Note—NETCOM Directorate of Doctrine and Intelligence

Systems Training (DDIST) supports Intelligence Systems Training and TM Verification).

7. The PSM supported by the technical writer will ensure the deliverable comments are consolidated and

submitted back to the COR for Contractor review and incorporation.

8. The PSM IPT will hold a discussion via teleconference call with the OEM and PSM IPT to discuss comments

and redlines and provide clarification, as needed. (This process is repeated at the 70 percent, and 100

percent reviews and as needed over the TM development cycle).

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

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

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

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

FORMAT — using the IADS tool, formatting and quality deficiencies are easily identifiable by the Contractor as well as the government POCs reviewing in IADS. Use of IADS will greatly increase the ability for the PSM IPT to conduct quality checks on formatting. When feasible, it is highly recommended that the PSM IPT members have access to test sets in order to compare the skeleton TM instructions and drawings against the system hardware and software.

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

Note: Logistics Test assets are KEY to review process

Figure 3: TM Flow chart COTS/NDI Program

3. COTs/NDI: 6 -12 Month Development Timeline During a rapid acquisition, the team is working simultaneous actions and due to the COTS/NDI nature of a program, things change frequently and rapidly. The RPSTL will be continually updated throughout development and over the life cycle, therefore, flexibility is key.

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

This expedited timeline reflects:

MS C and 30 days after award (DAW) – Post award guidance conference - receive 30% deliverable (initial

draft Work Package and TM outline) initial family tree, MAC, data for FMECA, data for LORA

CDR – Occurs between 30% and 70% deliverables

70% = Final MAC and final family tree

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

Provisioning Conference

100% = Validation just after Provisioning Conference

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

applies.

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

equipment. Unit uses for 2-4 weeks and PM trainers and testers on site document any deficiencies.

Deficiencies are incorporated into the FRC TM. (This is a Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

unique process, your program may vary – but this gives an idea of how quickly things work in a rapid

COTs/NDI program).

FRC = 30 days after fielding.

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

Afterwards Maintainability Evaluation (ME) – Soldier must first be trained and the TM verified. ME only

applicable if one of the three criteria outlined in figure 1 exists. Otherwise, no ME required.

Fielding 12 months – Fielding date drives contractor IMS – work backwards from Fielding to 30 DAW to

develop your schedule based on events (see above).

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

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

Note: Consolidation of efforts and tailoring = efficiency.

PART II - FRAMING TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT EARLY SCHOOLHOUSE INVOLVEMENT

1. Schoolhouse Familiarization: Prior to the OEM developing the initial work packages, PSM IPT members can familiarize themselves with the Program of Instruction (POI) for both the operator and maintainers. For maintenance manuals, the PSM IPT can ensure they influence TM development to synchronize with what is being trained at the schoolhouse. PSM IPT members can locate the Program of Instruction (POI) for all Military Occupational Specialty’s (MOS) at the below database (system access request required): https://cascom.tradoc.army.mil/sites/g3/td/od/SitePages/Home.aspx Note: What is the Schoolhouse teaching? This will inform and guide TM Development. It is recommended that Program Managers (PM)s download the approved MOS Critical Task List (CTL) and share this information with the OEMs early during development to familiarize them with Soldier skills and assist in development of Maintenance Task Analysis. PMs can utilize the database to build their own Library of MOS CTLs and POI.

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

consider skills taught in MOS schools when developing the MTA that will build the TM.

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

required to develop the structure. The relationship of the PSA and the LPD output, for purposes of maintenance planning, are generally as follows:

FMECA (SAE TA-STD-0017, Activity 9.5) identifies potential design weaknesses through systematic

documented consideration of all likely ways in which a component or equipment can fail, the causes for

each failure mode, and the effects of each failure.

Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) (SAE TA- STD-0017, Activity 9.7) identifies preventive or

scheduled maintenance tasks for an equipment end item in accordance with a specified set of procedures

and establishes intervals between maintenance tasks.

Task analysis (SAE TA-STD-0017, Activity 12), analyzes required operations and maintenance tasks for the

new system/equipment; reliability program identifies the frequency of failures. Maintainability program

identifies the elapsed time to correct a failure; the maintenance task frequency identifies maintenance

intervals and validates the maintenance task relevance.

The Level of Repair Analysis (LORA) identifies the recommended maintenance levels and support costs

associated with unscheduled maintenance tasks (LORA Handbook, January 2015).

Note: PSA and LPD = Foundation of the TM

PSA and LPD continued

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

FMECA results

Bill of Material (BOM)

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

MTA results

Preliminary Maintenance Allocation Chart (PMAC)

MAC

RPSTL

PMCS

Engineering Data for Provisioning (EDFP)

Provisioning Screening

LORA results

Design Change Notification (DCN)

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

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

* Note—DoD Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) Guide and MIL-HDBK-470A (Designing

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

2.1 Product Support Analysis 2.1.1 How Does the FMECA Influence TM Development?

Note: FMECA identifies critical tasks to be demonstrated during TM Verification

The FMECA identifies the critical tasks required to be demonstrated during TM verification. The FMEA referred to as a failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis, or FMECA, when the criticality of failures is also determined) systematically identifies the likely modes of failure and the possible effects of each failure on mission completion (MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis). The FMECA addresses the same features as the FMEA; however, the FMECA additionally addresses the criticality of each effect on mission completion, environmental impacts, health hazards, and system safety (MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis). FMECA is also a regulatory requirement per DOD 5000.02. Further, the FMECA provides key inputs into the MTA and LORA, which feeds the MAC then ties into the RPSTL. Per MIL-HBK-470A traditionally, the FMEA has been used as a reliability analysis and design tool. However, the results of an FMEA are also a key input to the design for maintainability. The FMEA helps establish the necessary maintainability design characteristics based on potential failure modes and their effects on subsystems, equipment, and product operation. The results of the FMEA are used to determine placement and nature of test points, to develop troubleshooting schemes, to establish design characteristics relative to the ease of maintenance, and to develop fault detection and isolation strategies.

Below are the outputs of the FMECA:

Determining the effect of each failure mode on performance

Root cause identification and development of corrective actions

Investigation of design alternatives

Development of test methods and troubleshooting techniques

Qualitative reliability and maintainability analyses

Locating single point failures

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

Qualitative safety and supportability analyses

Ranking failure according to severity classification

Estimating system critical failure rates

Identifying reliability and safety critical components.

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

Note: Reliability, criticality, environmental, safety, design influence, task and interval identification

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

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

2.1.2. How Does the LORA Influence TM Development?

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

Note: LORA feeds the Maintenance Allocation Chart (MAC)

What is the Purpose of the LORA? The LORA process involves a group of three systematic and comprehensive evaluations (i.e., economic, noneconomic, and sensitivity evaluations), that when conducted on an iterative basis throughout all phases of the system/equipment life cycle, arrive at level of repair/discard alternatives that satisfy sustainment objectives. Through these iterative evaluation processes, a maintenance and support concept for the system/equipment which is effective, yet economical, can be established. This is often

accomplished by influencing the system’s design for supportability. (Defense Acquisition University

website).

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

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

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

Contracting for the LORA

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

PSA STD/HDBK Activity Description Product/LPD

FMECA SAE-TA-STD-0017

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

CTL for TM verification; PMCS

RCM SAE-TA-STD-0017

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

MMR, Functional Failures, PMCS

LORA SAE-TA-STD-0017 SAE AS 1390

11.7 Identifies the recommended maintenance levels and support costs associated with unscheduled maintenance tasks

MAC

MTA SAE-TA-STD-0017

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

MARC, CTL, (Marc data feeds the basis of issue plan feeder data)

LSAR SAE-TA-STD-0017 and SAE GEIA HB 0007-1

12.9 Identifies appropriate part, configuration status, and parts sources based on provisioning data submitted for screening.

PPL, EDFP, RPSTL, BOM

Table II: PSA Standards and Relationships

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

PMAC

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

MAC

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

RPSTL

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

PMCS

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

EDFP

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

Provisioning Screening

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

PART III - TECHNICAL MANUAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE ACQUISITION FRAMEWORK

1. Milestone A (MS A) and Technology Maturation Risk Reduction (TMRR) Phase – The purpose of this phase is to develop competitive prototypes in order to affect risk reduction

while ensuring technology advancements are developed in a way that maintains intuitive user interfaces and reduces overall logistics footprint and life-cycle costs. Maintainability Assessment incorporates user input into the design, which also influences the complexity and length of the TM. Note: MS A Prototypes Reduce Risk

Technical Manual at MS A & TMRR— During these phases, the technical manual will be in a

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

Note: Key Events: FMECA, Design Interface, Maintainability, Skelton Technical Manual

FMECA - The purpose of the FMECA during TMRR is to influence the design interfaces and human

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

Special Tools:

Note: Prototypes incorporate Approved Army Standard Tools

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

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

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

Technical Manual at MS B — During Milestone B, the TMs are a skeleton format to include basic

diagrams and instructions written to the Prototype. During the testing phase there may be Engineering Change Proposals (ECP)s incorporated into the end item hardware and software that will further inform the instructions for operator and maintainer manuals. TIRs are documented throughout the testing process. During MS B the contract should ensure that the OEM will be required to incorporate the TIRs

into the future TM deliverables. As the system nears closer to a stabilized design, this is when the OEM and PSM IPT will begin to coordinate the review of TM deliverables. Note— the engineer, PSM, lead logistician and technical writer need to have coordinated with the OEM during MSA, TMRR, and EMD phases to ensure the TIRs and skeleton TM is aligned with system drawings. Note: Key Events: Post Contract Award Guidance Conference, Post Critical Design Review, Stable Design – PSM IPT will review initial deliverable

FMECA — After prototype down-select then entering into the EMD phase early in MS B, the purpose

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

3. Milestone C (MS C) and Production and Deployment (P&D) Phase For programs 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 definitions 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 ability to develop one, the OASIS contract is an excellent vehicle to support partnering between the OEM and a third party logistics company who can develop the TMs against required technical data (using the OEM engineers as SMEs). The vehicle is already 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 incremental 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 Assessment (MA) 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 MA and ME (see MILHDBK-470A). The MA 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 MA and ME will be documented within the Test Evaluation Management Plan (TEMP). TMs at this phase will be in a skeleton format.

MA 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 technology (new business process required). If the program does not meet one of the three criteria, there is no MA. For programs that have any one of the three criteria, the MA will be conducted by the OEM on the prototypes and TRADOC will witness. The outputs of the MA will drive the decision 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 during 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.

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 of the approved FMECA results. The PSM IPT will identify those safety critical tasks per the FMECA and develop the 100% Hands-On verification plan for those specific tasks. The PSM, in coordination with the lead technical writer, must ensure that the verification plan is finalized and signed 30 calendar 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

Note: Verification = 100% Safety Critical Tasks Hands-On Remainder = Desktop Review

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 from the TRADOC

user representative (CASCOM, TCM or NETCOM, depending on the system) at least 30 calendar 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

1. The sampling plan needs to be developed and negotiated with the PSM IPT members and must include

the following:

A. methodology and standard used to determine the sample size

B. clear "go" versus "no-go" criteria for samples material reviewed

C. “No-go” findings must be documented in line with the contractual Quality Assurance Program

Plan in order to submit to the PSM to be provided through the COR. This will enable the OEM to

incorporate the updates prior to Verification TM being accepted by the government.

After the verification event is complete, the PSM will submit the verification plan results to the EPCO who will load the plan into the PMs will submit the verification plan results to the DA Electronic Manual Validation and Verification Plan Repository at: https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/department-of-army-electronic-manual-validation-and-verification-plan-repository.

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

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 Milestone 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 ensure 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.

Note: Key Events: Align TM schedule with key program events. Establish Evaluation Criteria for Contractor Selection.

2. Source Selection and Evaluation Criteria (SSEC) Development In order to select the contractor that will provide the best value and performance to the government, 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 determine technical

capability.

The Source Selection Plan (SSP) outlines how the government will evaluate the proposals 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 of a prime

contractor to manage and coordinate subcontractor efforts, if applicable, as well as compliance

with statutory requirements of the small business subcontracting program. 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 Information at http://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/A%20guide%20to%20collection%20and%20use%20of%20past%20performance%20informance.pdf, as well as the CPARS Guidance PDF dated 15 July, 2018 at https://www.cpars.gov/pdfs/CPARS-Guidance.pdf. Note: Ensure selection of best performing contractor 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 evaluations 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 missions.”

3. Optional Contracting Vehicle PEOs and LCMCs are encouraged to use the OASIS contracting vehicle for the development and sustainment of TMs and LPD. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts reduce risk to the government and ensure the OEM is “incentivized” to develop quality products 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 incorporates 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 Air Force Life cycle Command (AFLCMC) uses the OASIS vehicle for the majority of their services.

**See attached SOW in this Guidebook for contract language and the Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). Review OASIS CDRLS to ensure correct Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) are selected 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. Note: PSM IPT Review and Quality Assurance Process

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 to ensure the MAC and EDFP align with them. This will set the OEM up for success in development of their initial work package deliverable. Just after CDR, the OEM and the PSM IPT will now begin the review of actual TM deliverables. This enables the government and OEM to remain engaged over the development of the TM and LPD to provide guidance and quality assurance against all deliverables. 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 subjective. 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 beginning 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 deliverable. This will incentivize the OEM to meet government quality requirements. (See appendix A for a sample rejection letter).

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 government’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 technical 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 disclose technical data within the government without restrictions and to release or disclose technical data (with a nondisclosure agreement) 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 in whole or in part within the government. The government may not, without written permission of

the owner asserting the limited rights, release or disclose the technical data outside the government, use the

technical data for manufacture or authorize the technical data to be used by another party except that the

government may reproduce, release, or disclose such data or authorize the use or reproduction of the data by

persons outside the government if the data is necessary for emergency repair, is needed for information purposes

only, is subject to further restrictions on release and reproduction, and the owner 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 Requirements Lists, and Standard Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement Clauses,” dated 7 September 2017.

7. Contracting for Manufacturer (COTS) Manuals For those systems that are strictly COTS (see DFARS 2.101 definition for COTS), please follow the guidance 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 manufacturer manual against MIL-PRF-32216A to determine if the manual is sufficient in the original form to meet user needs and uthentication 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 incremental 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. Note: COTS/NDI TMs – Add supplemental data to support

Modified COTS and NDI TM Development

COTS/NDI manufacturer manuals are developed after being evaluated against MIL-PRF-32216A

(or latest version) to determine what supplemental data (if any) is required. A TM verification is

still required against the safety critical tasks identified in the FMECA.

PSM IPT will determine the delta between the COTS/NDI manufacturer manual and where it

needs to 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

process for MIL-STD TMs. The PSM IPT will be required to review deliverables to ensure it meets

the content format selection summary for quality, usability and accuracy. The content needs to

enable the user to perform all tasks successfully, as written. DA-authenticated COTS TMs are still

required to 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

have parts provisioned in LMP. The provisioning will support those DA-authenticated COTS TMs

identified as requiring a MAC and RPSTL when evaluation by the PSM IPT against the MIL-PRF-

32216A determines it necessary as supplemental data.

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

maintenance 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.

PART V - STANDARD STATEMENT OF WORK LANGUAGE The below SOW language has been approved by HQ AMC Army Contracting Command (ACC). This language is recommended for stand-alone TM contracts and may 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 it to the government.

1.1 – 4.0 Statement of Work Language 1.1 Electronic Technical Manuals and Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals (ETM/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. 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).

1.1.2 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).

1.1.3 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).

1.1.4 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.

1.1.5 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. 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 INFOSEC 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 Requirements 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).

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

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). 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).

1.1.7 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 Contractor 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 Government, whichever is mutually agreeable to both.

The Government shall provide program specific style manuals and appropriate samples as an appendix to the SOW. The Government 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 Government 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).

REVIEW TIMELINES:

*Note – the days to review should be related to the level of complexity of your program. Shorter than 30 day review periods may apply for less complex/more mature systems and longer reviews may apply for more complex/less mature systems, 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 in time 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 meet the unique needs of your

requirement, just ensure it is detailed in the SOW, IMS, and CDRLs.

2.0 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 Government 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 Matrix).). 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.

2.1 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 Government 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).

2.2. 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 Reproducible Copy (FRC). (See sample CDRL in appendix B).

a. Contractor Validation Submission Review and Acceptance

The 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 Acceptance

The 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 Government 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 Acceptance

The 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 Contractor 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, rejections and payment withholds, it is recommended to isolate and separately price the CDRLs for TM deliv- erables, 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).

2.3 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 teleconferences (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.

2.4 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 artwork 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 Government for reproduction, use, and distribution. All codes, intellectual property rights, and technical data rights used to generate 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

2.5 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 non-destructive 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). Contractor 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).

2.6 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).

2.7 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).

2.8 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).

2.8 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 this standard, 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

2.9 Quality Assurance

The Contractor, during the contract performance entirety, shall implement and maintain quality assurance and control on documentation, 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 Government 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.

2.9.1 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).

2.9.2 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 accepts. 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

3.0. 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.

3.1 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).

3.1.1 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 Contractor 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 FIGURE #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).

3.1.2 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) supplied 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 Government. 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.

3.1.3 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 introducing a new tool to the Army inventory. The contractor shall ensure they abide by Army policy to reduce the logistics footprint to the field.

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-40051-2. 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 installing hardware modifications to fielded Army equipment.

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

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 Services (PMCS) and Pre-shop Analysis Operations on RCM logic).

Front Matter “Boilerplate”

Appendices “Boilerplate”

3.2 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).

3.2.1 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 Government 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.

3.2.2 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.

4.0 Insert LPD SOW Language Here: Due to the level of tailoring required for individual weapon systems, it is imperative that the PSM contact their local ILSC Provisioning 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. *See the TM and LPD Development Process Flow Chart (pages 10-11) as a guide for LPD common

deliverables.

5.0 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

6.0 TM and Provisioning Points of Contact by Command: AMCOM: For provisioning and TM assistance, please contact the AMCOM EPCO central email at:usarmy.redstone.amcom.mbx.alc-plm@mail.mil

CECOM: For provisioning and TM assistance, please contact the CECOM EPCO central email at: usarmy.apg.cecom.mbx.lrc-leo-epco2@mail.mil

TACOM: For provisioning assistance, please contact the TACOM provisioning center at: usarmy.detroit.tacom.mbx.ilsc-provisioning-process-cent@mail.mil

TACOM: For TM assistance, please contact the TACOM EPCO central email at: usarmy.detroit.tacom.mbx.ilsc-epco@mail.mil

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

7.0 Organic Product Support Analysis Support Aberdeen Proving Ground CCDC: For assistance with LORA development and training please email the APG CCDC LORA central email at: usarmy.apg.rdecom-cerdec.mbx.cerdec-prd-sse-division@mail.mil

Warren CCDC: For assistance developing an Organic FMECA and MTA please contact the TARDEC FMECA central email at: usarmy.detroit.rdecom.mbx.government-developed-fmeca@mail.mil

List of References (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

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

Appendices Appendix A – Sample rejection letter

Appendix B – Sample CDRLs (Sample Incremental TM deliverable Submission CDRL)

Sample XML CDRL

Sample LORA CDRL requesting the data required to enable the Government to perform the LORA

Sample FMCEA CDRL - This CDRL requests the data that will enable the Government to perform the FMECA

Sample MTA CDRL – example of a tailored MTA CDRL

Sample Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) CDRL

Sample Test Incident Report CDRL

Appendix C – Sample Quality Assurance Program Plan UPDATED TM/IETM QUALITY ASSURANCE LANGUAGE 2018

Reference Document

MIL-Q-87270, Quality Assurance Program: Requirements for Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals and Associated Technical Information, 20 November 1992 (cancelled 1996). 1. SCOPE 1.1 Scope. This specification prescribes the requirements for a Contractor’s Quality Assurance (QA) Program (QAP) for technical manuals (TMs), interactive electronic technical manuals (IETMs), and associated technical information and source data. The requirements herein cover the QA process from planning through final submission of the delivered products for acceptance, and apply to all changes and revisions thereto. 1.2 Summary of requirements. This specification provides detailed requirements for the following:

1. Preparation of a Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Plan (QAPP), which is to be followed by the

Contractor’s QA organization to ensure delivery of TMs and IETMs IAW contract requirements.

2. Participation in a guidance and quality planning conference.

3. Participation in Government-conducted QA process inspections (QAPIs), which will address

primarily the Contractor’s QA processes.

4. Validation of the TMs and IETMs and related technical information.

5. Support of Government-conducted verification of the TMs and IETMs and related technical

information.

6. Preparation, retention, and analysis of QA records.

2. REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Technical Manual (IETM) Quality Assurance Program (QAP). The Contractor shall establish a QAP IAW ISO 9001 and the requirements of this specification to ensure the preparation of technically accurate and complete TMs and IETMs. Unless otherwise specified, the QAP shall encompass the accountability for and development of QA functions related to the following TM and IETM program elements:

a. Source data management

b. Intermediate product management

c. Evaluation of draft material

d. Participation in QA process inspections (QAPIs)

e. Participation in in-process reviews (IPRs)

f. Graphics control

g. System software documentation and control

h. Database integrity maintenance

i. Validation

j. Record keeping

k. Documentation of contractor operating procedures

l. Verification support

m. Final product preparation

n. Sample procedures where authorized

o. Tracking of provisioned item changes

p. Change and revisions after publication

2.2 TM Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP). The Contractor shall prepare a QAP IAW the requirements of this specification. When specified by the contract data requirements list (CDRL), DD Form 1423, the QAPP shall be delivered to and approved by the Government as specified in the CDRL.

Where contractually specified, the requirements of the data item descriptions (DIDs) listed on the CDRL shall apply in addition to, or in place of, those in this specification. 2.2.1 Components of the QAPP. The QAPP shall describe the scope and approach of the Contractor’s TM QAP and, once approved by the Government, shall provide the basis of execution for the QAP. The QAPP shall reflect all requirements expressed in the CDRL and in addition shall contain the following: Scope and applicability of the QAPP, including a list of deliverables to which the QAPP applies

a. A description of the function and structure of the Contractor’s QA organization

b. A description of the authoring software used by the Contractor

c. A listing of the Contractor’s operating procedures for TM and IETM development

d. A listing of the Contractor’s procedures for quality reviews, including the accomplishment of

required changes and the correct of identified errors and deficiencies

e. A source data management plan

f. A subcontractor and vendor control plan

g. Sampling procedures and criteria, where applicable

h. A validation approach plan

i. A verification support approach summary

j. Acceptance/rejection criteria

k. A classification of defects table

2.2.1.1 Scope and applicability of the QAPP. The QAPP shall identify the scope and applicability of the QA effort. The QAPP shall identify all contractually deliverable TMs, IETMs, related technical information, and source data; the contract specifications with which deliverables must comply; and the schedule (to the extent that it can be estimated at the time the QAPP is submitted) for their inspection and delivery. The QAPP shall list the following:

a. All deliverables IAW contract CDRL

b. Specifications that each contractually deliverable item must meet to be in compliance with the

contract

c. A preliminary schedule for each deliverable item listed in the CDRL, including descriptions of any

factors anticipated by the Contractor that might result in schedule changes (early or late

accomplishment). The schedule shall include the following:

1) Conduct of Government QAPIs (including review of interim deliverables)

2) Contractor quality reviews

3) Validation

4) TM/IETM readiness for verification

5) Estimated date of delivery

6) Any other contractually required milestone

2.2.1.2 Function and structure of the Contractor’s QA organization. The QAPP shall describe the functional relationships and the structure of the QA organization. 2.2.1.2.1. Function of the QA organization. The Contractor’s QA organization shall have the responsibility for implementation, administration, and conduct of the QA program, and shall function as the point of contact (POC) between the Contractor and the Government in all matters related to QA. 2.2.1.2.2. Structure of the QA organization. The QAPP shall describe the Contractor’s QA organization (e.g., structure and approximate size). This description shall indicate how the Contractor’s QA personnel are organized to retain their independence from personnel responsible for development of TMs and IETMs, so as to be able to carry out their QA responsibilities in an objective manner. 2.2.1.3 Description of the TM/IETM authoring software. The Contractor’s proposed TM/IETM authoring system shall be described to ensure that necessary capabilities are met.

2.2.1.4. Operating procedures for TM/IETM development. Contractor personnel, subcontractors, and vendors involved in TM and IETM development shall operate IAW standard operating procedures (SOPs). Portions of these procedures relating directly to product quality shall be cited in the QAPP and identified by name, number, and date. Such procedures shall be originated, revised, and controlled within the framework of the overall QAP, and shall be periodically reviewed, evaluated, and updated as required. A plan for controlling and updating such procedures shall be presented in the QAPP. Current SOPs shall be made available for Government inspection. 2.2.1.5. Contractor quality reviews. The QAPP shall describe the proposed quality review procedures for each individual type of deliverable specified by the CDRL to ensure compliance with its contractual specifications. When a given process (e.g., validation) applies to multiple deliverables, the procedure need be presented only once, but may be referred to as often as necessary. The QAPP shall also explain procedures for maintaining records of defects found and corrective actions taken. 2.2.1.6. Source data management plan. The QAPP shall describe plans to ensure that the most current source data are made available, controlled, and used for TM and IETM development. 2.2.1.6.1. Product Support Analysis (PSA) and Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) Reports. The QAPP shall include a statement that the QA effort will ensure that information developed by Product Support Analysis (PSA) efforts and Logistics Support Analysis (LSA) Reports and the TM/IETM, and other source data, is used to develop TMs and IETMs and that the TMs/IETMs are consistent with PSA and LSA Report source data. 2.2.1.6.2. Examples of TM and IETM source data. The following are some examples of the types of documents that are considered appropriate TM/IETM source data:

a. PSA data

b. Task analysis data

c. LSA reports

d. Maintenance concepts, strategies, and plans

e. FMECA and Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) data

f. Engineering reports

g. Engineering drawings

h. Procurement and test specifications

i. Support equipment description data

j. Commercial manuals and materials from vendors

k. Results from testing and logistics demonstration (log demo)

l. System and subsystem data

m. Classification data (DD254)

n. Maintenance engineering analysis records

o. Engineering change proposals (ECPs)

p. Provisioning parts breakdowns

q. Design change notices (DCNs)

r. Validation results

s. Verification results

2.2.1.7. Control of subcontractors and vendors. The QAPP shall describe the approach by which the Contractor shall ensure that TM and IETM products prepared by subcontractors and vendors satisfy all contractual requirements. 2.2.1.8. Sampling inspection plan. The QAPP shall describe the overall sampling inspection plan, if authorized. 2.2.1.9. Validation approach plan. The QAPP shall contain a plan covering the approach the Contractor intends to use for TM/IETM validation. This plan shall outline the intended methodology for validation.

2.2.1.10. Verification support approach summary. The QAPP shall summarize the Contractor’s proposed approach to support the Government’s verification effort for each TM/IETM deliverable involved. 2.2.1.11. Acceptance/rejection criteria. The QAPP shall include the Contractor’s proposed acceptance/rejection criteria for entry to and exit from validation events. 2.2.1.12 Classification of defects table. The QAPP shall contain a classification of defects table in which a complete listing of the possible types of defects discovered in the TM/IETM will be classified into major or minor categories, depending upon their probable impact. The Contractor and Government may jointly classify additional defects as needed. 2.2.2. Implementation of the QAPP. The Government will furnish written notice of the acceptability of the Contractor’s QAPP. The QAP, as approved by the Government through review of the QAPP, and as jointly reviewed at the guidance and quality planning conference, shall be fully implemented by the Contractor. 2.2.3. Changes to QA procedures. Any changes to QA procedures initially incorporated into the QAPP, resulting from changes in delivery schedules or revisions to QA methodology, or any other changes considered desirable for assuring a more effective product, shall be put into effect by the Contractor after incorporation into the QAPP, and after the QAPP change has been approved by the Government by notification from the Contracting Officer (KO). Updates to written SOPs where procedural changes are not made do not constitute changes as described in this paragraph. 2.3. Guidance and quality planning conference. A guidance and quality planning conference shall be conducted to ensure the Contractor’s understanding of applicable specifications, contract requirements, formal instructions, established policies, and program requirements. Anticipated QA problems will be identified and resolved at this conference. Attendance shall include all key Government and Contractor personnel who will be involved in the QA program. The Contractor shall explain the proposed QAP at this conference, demonstrating how the QAP meets all of the requirements of this specification and how the QAP will function to assure a quality product. The Contractor shall also explain the classification of defects table during this conference. Agreed-upon modifications developed at the guidance and quality planning conference will be incorporated into the QAPP, and the final version of the QAPP shall be delivered to the Government no later than 45 days after the conference. The Government will review the QAPP for approval or disapproval. 2.4 Government inspections. The Government reserves the right to make any inspections (process or product) that it deems necessary to ensure that the TMs/IETMs and related elements meet contract requirements. The Contractor shall support these inspections by providing access to all QA records and TM/IETM documentation. The Government will notify the Contractor of any discrepancies via KO letter. The Contractor shall correct, or develop a plan to correct, these discrepancies IAW timelines provided by the KO. 2.4.1. QA process inspections (QAPIs). The Government will conduct a series of scheduled QAPIs to establish that the QAPP is being properly followed, product quality reviews are being correctly implemented, defects are being identified, and appropriate corrective actions are being taken. 2.4.1.1. Support and presentation of records for QAPIs. At all QAPIs, the Contractor shall make available to the Government its QA records to enable the Government to ensure that the QAPP is being implemented and is effective. The Contractor shall also support Government-conducted QAPIs by providing access to finished deliverables, validated technical information, technical information in development, and source data, as required by the Government.

2.4.1.2. Location of QAPIs. Unless otherwise specified, Government QAPIs will be conducted at the Contractor’s facility and chaired by the Government TM/IETM QA representative. 2.4.2. In-process reviews (IPRs). The Government will also supplement the QA process reviews with IPRs (i.e., QA product inspections) to ensure that TMs and IETMs are being prepared IAW the contract and cited specifications. The Government and the Contractor will jointly establish the frequency and timing of IPRs, with the Government having final approval authority for the schedule. Additional IPRs may be required based on the Contractor’s or Government’s evaluation of the development process or the criticality/complexity of the material covered. Safety and nuclear weapon procedures identified by the Government shall require a 100% IPR. The IPR schedule will be agreed upon at the guidance and quality planning conference, and the Government-approved IPR schedule shall be contained in the guidance and quality planning conference minutes. 2.5. Contractor inspections and quality reviews. During TM and IETM development and production, the Contractor shall perform inspections of all TMs/IETMs under preparation, and all of the constituent elements and processes, as described in the QAPP. These inspections shall be used to assess compliance with the QAP and cited specifications. These inspections and reviews shall provide for corrective actions. 2.5.1. Contractor quality assurance inspection and records. The Contractor shall maintain, and provide to the Government upon request, records documenting all contractor process and product inspections. These records shall include the following:

a. Name of the operation or product inspected

b. Date

c. Name(s) of inspector(s)

d. Defects found

e. Procedure or inspection leading to identification of defect

f. Method of defect correction or explanation for no correction of defect

g. Name of person(s) making correction

h. Name of person(s) certifying that products have been corrected or, when applicable, that

operations have been modified and SOPs corrected as necessary

2.5.2. Review of TM and IETM maintenance and operating procedures. Quality review procedures shall assure the following, at a minimum:

a. All input conditions for maintenance and operating procedures contained in the TM/IETM are

explicitly identified

b. Steps contained in the procedures use concise text and clear graphics to the instruct the user

c. Each task is cross referenced with (i.e., provided with suitable links to) appropriate descriptive,

troubleshooting, parts, and operational information

d. Steps within a maintenance or operating procedure are presented sequentially and in their

entirety

e. All warnings, cautions, and notes associated with a maintenance or operation action are

presented so that the user is aware of all potentially dangerous or damaging situations prior to

initiation of the action

f. Procedures are suitable for presentation on an IETM reader (if applicable)

g. Information that is not applicable is not displayed

2.6. Validation. The objective of validation is to ensure that the Contractor has provided accurate and adequate TMs/IETMs for support of the Army materiel involved. Validation shall be performed IAW an approved validation plan. The Government reserves the right to witness the validation. Validation shall be accomplished on all deliverables and changes thereto. The validation process shall include the following steps:

a. Preparation and approval of a validation plan

b. Engineering review and certification that TMs/IETMs and related technical information and source

data are ready for validation

c. Validation of TMs/IETMs and related technical information

d. Validation of IETM usability and functionality

e. Validation of any automated IETM compilation process(es)

f. Post-validation review

g. Preparation of validation documentation

h. Certificate of validation completion

2.6.1. Validation plan. IAW a schedule agreed to by the Contractor and the Government, the Contractor shall deliver a validation plan covering each TM/IETM required by contract. The plan shall detail the anticipated schedule, requirements, and procedures for performing validation. When contractually required, the validation plan shall be developed IAW the DID listed on the CDRL. When approved by the Government, this validation plan shall be followed in conducting validation of all TM/IETM deliverables. 2.6.1.1. Validation plan summary. Unless otherwise specified, the validation plan shall contain the following items, at a minimum:

a. Titles and identification numbers (when available) of all deliverables to be validated

b. Schedules for validation steps summarized in 2.6.

c. Cognizant Contractor organization and personnel responsible for accomplishing the validation

effort

d. Site locations, support equipment, facilities, test equipment, tools, materials, and contractual end

items required during validation

e. General characteristics relating to skill level and occupational specialty of target audience

personnel

f. Identification of next higher assembly(ies) and/or system(s) required to support the effort (e.g., if a

procedure entails installing a black box on an aircraft, the aircraft is the next higher assembly)

g. Associated technical information and source data recommended for concurrent or consecutive

validation

h. Special safety precautions

i. Any special environmental requirements

j. Record keeping system to be used in validation

k. How validation of procedures is to be accomplished

l. A proposed fault simulation for use in validation of troubleshooting procedures

m. Approach to evaluation of IETM usability and functionality

n. Application of results of tests performed during the validation process to the correction of

deficiencies

2.6.2. Engineering reviews. The Contractor shall conduct appropriate engineering reviews of the TMs/IETMs and related technical information to ensure that it is safe, complete, logical, technically accurate, and comprehensible. Based on this review, the Contractor shall certify prior to validation that the material permits efficient performance of the intended equipment-support functions for which the material was designed, and that the material is ready for validation. All errors noted during this engineering review shall be corrected prior to validation. The Government shall be notified of the validation schedule prior to validation commencement. The Contractor shall maintain all engineering review records. 2.6.3. Validation of TMs/IETMs and related technical information. Validation shall be accomplished IAW the validation plan. 2.6.3.1. Target audience. The validation shall be performed by individuals who are of approximately the same education, experience, and skill level as the actual target audience for the TM/IETM. Where it is not possible to obtain such personnel for validation, validation personnel shall at least exclude those who

cannot be expected to provide a realistic test of the validity of the material (e.g., graduate engineers or those involved in authoring the material). The validators shall follow exactly the procedures set forth in the TM/IETM and shall use display software and systems identical to those involved in field use. An operational environment shall be used, if possible, or simulated, if practicable. 2.6.3.2. Security. The Contractor shall refer to the applicable Security Classification Guide or DD Form 254 during validation to determine whether any classified data have been included. 2.6.3.3. Support equipment for validation. The Contractor shall identify any Government-furnished equipment (GFE) needed and notify the Government in time for contractual requirements to be met. The Contractor shall provide all consumable and expendable items required to support validation. 2.6.3.4. Validation interruption. The Government’s witnessing official may require that the Contractor stop validation or revise and repeat validation steps if this official believes that the Contractor validation procedure is not adequate to substantiate the technical accuracy of the TM/IETM. Any such temporary interruption of validation procedures, or performance of revised or repeated validation steps, under the terms of this provision shall be accomplished at no additional cost to the Government. 2.6.3.5. Validation of procedural technical information. Contractor personnel shall validate each step in every procedure. All procedures shall be shown to be IAW those listed in the appropriate PSA and LSA reports. The Contractor shall ensure that every procedure contained in the system maintenance allocation chart (MAC) and derived from results from PSA, LSA reports, and FMECA is reflected in the TM/IETM. 2.6.3.5.1. Operating and maintenance procedures. Validation shall entail the actual performance by Contractor personnel of all operating and maintenance procedures, including weapons loading, delivery, and cargo tiedown. Validation shall include revalidation of modified procedures and new procedures developed during modification programs. Standard and/or special tools, test equipment, etc., shall be used as specified in the TM/IETM. In exceptional cases when damage to materiel or injury to personnel may occur, validation of these procedures may be by simulation, if approved by the Government. 2.6.3.5.2. Criteria for successful validation of procedures. The validator shall be able to perform the procedure successfully without assistance. If for any reason a validator fails to perform a procedure without assistance, the procedure shall be carefully analyzed for technical errors and incomprehensibility. If technical errors are found, corrections shall be made or alternative accurate technical information shall be prepared and revalidated. If the procedure is reworked, the material shall be revalidated with a new validator. Minor corrections, which must be cited, may be made without revalidation. The validation shall ensure that the procedures being validated are safe, complete, logical, technically accurate, and comprehensible. 2.6.3.5.2.1. Successful validation of procedural information. Validation shall ensure that the procedures being validated are safe, complete, logical, technically accurate, and comprehensible.

a. Safe. Danger to a user in the field is minimized when performing all procedures as written.

b. Complete. All steps necessary to the performance of the individual procedure have been

included, and the procedure reflects the mission capability of the equipment.

c. Logical. Procedures are ordered in a way that is the most efficient for completion of the operation

or maintenance task.

d. Technically accurate. All operating procedures, fault isolation procedures, operational checkout

procedures, alignment procedures, system descriptive statements, parts lists, etc., are free of

errors.

h. Comprehensible. The procedures use concise text and clear graphics to instruct the user in

performing a task.

2.6.3.6. Validation of nonprocedural TM/IETM information. The validation of nonprocedural TM/IETM information, such as descriptive text, wire diagrams, schematics, parts list information, and similar support information shall be accomplished by comparing them to the actual hardware; or, when this is not

feasible, by comparing them to Government-approved source data. All nonprocedural technical information shall correspond to the actual equipment in all respects. All defects shall be corrected. 2.6.3.7. Validation of troubleshooting procedures. Validation of all established branches of the TM/IETM troubleshooting (fault isolation) procedures shall be performed with the weapon system hardware to which the troubleshooting procedures apply. This part of the validation effort shall be performed in conjunction with tabletop comparison with source data to ensure the accuracy and consistency of fault isolation paths. Validation shall also ensure that there are no open loops in the fault isolation tasks, and that each task ends in a single resolution, with repair procedures as necessary to repair discrete faults. 2.6.3.7.1. Troubleshooting procedures list. The Contractor shall prepare a list of troubleshooting branches for every fault identified during the weapon system PSA, or other Failure Mode and Effects Criticality Analysis (FMECA) when a complete PSA record is not available, and a complete list of fault simulations for use during validation of troubleshooting procedures. Upon approval by the Government, the troubleshooting procedures list shall be appended to the validation plan. The list will be used for selection by the Government of simulated faults for use in validation of troubleshooting procedures and related technical information. 2.6.3.8 Other technical data. All other data contained in the TM/IETM, such as Source, Maintenance, and Recoverability (SMR) codes; illustrations; wiring data; and descriptive data shall be validated by comparison with current source data. 2.6.4. Validation of IETM usability and functionality. Unless otherwise specified, IETM usability and functionality shall be validated along with technical content. Corrective actions shall be taken to correct any defects in IETM usability and functionality. The extent of the validation shall be IAW the Government-approved validation plan. 2.6.5. Validation of any automated IETM compilation process(es). Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall validate the capability of any Contractor-generated programs used to extract information from source data and to format technical information for IETM display. The compilation process shall be validated by validating the functionality of the compiled product. 2.6.6. Post-validation review. The Contractor shall perform a post-validation review to ensure that all discrepancies noted during validation (and any other Contractor quality review) have been addressed prior to acceptance of the TM/IETM. 2.6.7. Validation records. The Contractor shall keep validation records for each item of technical information validated. The Contractor shall ensure that all applicable records are available to the Government throughout the life of the contract; that the records document full compliance with the contract specifications; and that all technical information is complete and validated. Records shall be maintained of the inspections, signatures of the inspectors, identification of the deliverables inspected, discrepancies found, corrections made as a result of validation, and certification that the deliverable fully meets contract specification requirements. Any deviations shall be explained. The certifications shall list any exceptions to contract requirements, the document(s) authorizing the exception, the signature of the Contractor representative, and the signatures of all Government witnesses present at the validation. 2.6.7.1. Validation records for procedural technical information. Validation records for procedural information shall include the name of the validator, the validator’s experience level, and the validator’s position classification, as well as the date, signature, and configuration of the procedures validated; method of correction used; and the signatures of both the person who made the correction and the inspector who certified that all errors found were corrected. The records shall further include a copy of the procedure after all errors detected during validation have been corrected and incorporated and the procedure successfully validated. When corrections are extensive, the material shall be reworked prior to recertification and revalidation.

2.6.8. Validation certification. The Contractor shall certify that the TM/IETM delivered to the Government for verification has been validated, that all corrections have been made, and that all contract requirements have been met. The certification shall list any exceptions, the document(s) authorizing the exception, and the signature of all Government witnesses present at the validation. When contractually required, this certification shall be documented IAW the applicable DID and CDRL. 2.7. Verification support. The Government performs verification of validated TM/IETM deliverables. When specified by the contract, the Contractor shall support verification. 2.7.1. Verification support plan. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall develop a verification support plan describing the Contractor’s approach to supporting a Government-conducted verification. The plan shall be delivered to the Government for approval prior to verification commencement. 2.8. Sampling. Unless otherwise specified by the contracting activity, sampling of technical information is authorized for QAPIs but is not permitted for validation or the post-validation review. Any sampling plan prepared by the Contractor for QAPIs or other critical operation inspections shall be cited in the QAPP and approved by the Government. 3. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROVISIONS 3.1. 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 Contract may use their own or any other facilities suitable for the performance of the inspection requirements, unless disapproved by the Government. The Government reserves the right to perform any of the inspections set forth in this specification where such inspections are deemed necessary to ensure that products conform to prescribed requirements. 3.1.1. Responsibility for compliance. All items shall meet all requirements of section 2. The inspection set forth in this specification shall become a part of the Contractor’s overall QA program. The absence of any inspection requirements in this specification shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility of ensuring that all deliverables submitted to the Government for acceptance comply with all requirements of the contract. Sampling inspection is an acceptable practice to ascertain conformance to requirements, except where prohibited; however, this does not authorize submission of known defective material, either indicated or actual, nor does it commit the Government to accept defective material. 3.2. QA responsibilities. The Contractor shall be responsible for the complete, accurate, and fully documented implementation of the QAP IAW the QAPP, and for product and process quality. 3.2.1. Record and documentation compliance. Contractor compliance with requirements will be determined by the accuracy, currency, and completeness of records as specified in the contract, the QAPP, and this specification. 3.2.2. Classification of defects table. The classification of defects table associated with the QAPP shall be developed by the Contractor and made available to the Government for review and approval during the guidance and quality planning conference and throughout the life of the contract.

Appendix D – Policy memo referencing use of manufacturer’s name

Appendix E- Clarification to policy memo