performance of fielded end items, and how the Product Support Strategy, contracts, and other sections deliver these required sustainment outcomes. Military Departments establish sustainment performance outcomes for their mission-essential systems and equipment. These desired outcomes are expressed as program requirements in the form of Key Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), Additional Program Attributes (APAs) or other working level or Component-specific sustainment requirements in Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) requirements documentation (i.e., Initial Capabilities Documents, Capability Development Documents, Capabilities Production Documents). These and other Component, OSD (e.g., supply chain attributes) or other requirements are detailed in Requests for Proposal (RFP), contracts or other documents and reporting systems. 2.1 Sustainment Performance Requirements The LCSP must identify all explicit, implicit or derived sustainment requirements in all requirements or other program documentati). These must be traceable to the program’s execution planning documents (e.g., RFP, contract, program support agreement) in which a metric is used to manage sustainment performance. For programs with goals that are to improve as the program evolves, indicate the planned evaluation timeframe and list the planned value from reliability growth curves or other projects and the expected timeframe for achieving the threshold/objective. For each sustainment requirement, identify are KPP/KSA/APAs, their authoritative requirements document, threshold and objective values, the specific section in the RFP/contract where that requirement is specified, section of the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) covering that metric, along with projected values at IOC, Full Operational Capability (FOC), and full fielding. As a program progresses through its life-cycle, LCSP updates for programs in operation should incorporate and list sustainment requirements from modernization and upgrade programs and any other Service or OSD sustainment reporting metrics not contained in the original requirements or execution planning documents. AFLCMC Clarifying Guidance: Purpose of this section is to identify how your program is/planning to measure product support effectiveness to include how the program office is planning to link user requirements to contractual requirements. If your program does not have formal KPP/KSAs defined, this section and subsequent tables should be tailored to capture the intent of this section – how are you measuring/monitoring product support /supportability for your program?
the targeted reliability metric until FOC what adjustments have/should be made to product support package between initial fielding and FOC. Additionally any mitigation plans identified should be reflected in Section 7, Integrated Schedule, and Section 8, Funding where appropriate. Supportability Trades Provide data for planned or completed supportability trade studies since the last LCSP update ). Supportability analysis can be stand-alone trade analysis or part of a system or subsystems analytical trade process.9 Trade name and date completed Lead IPT Options analyzed Criteria used to evaluate costs and benefits Results Impact – on the weapon system design and/or product support strategy and package, customer requirements 9 Includes business case or other economic analysis that consider sustainment costs and outcome value. P Table 9-4: Completed Supportability Trades Include an as-of date AFLCMC Additional Guidance: Any such as LCOM ATK, were used to support the supportability trade analysis should be stated in the “Options Analyzed” column. Supportability Trades should be considered and conducted from a lifecycle perspective. Programs need to address affordability over the lifecycle. When documenting trade studies, the PM should have considered the integrated linkages between requirements, design and the product support strategy to ensure an affordable design and effective product support package. The trades early in the acquisition process provide an initial assessment of the system’s sustainment requirements and affordability. Trades prior to Milestone B and later can influence the Product Support Arrangement, both commercial and organic. Later, including during sustainment, trades can be used to examine alternatives to control sustainment costs or achieve materiel availability at a lower cost.
Review Sustainment Participants Sustainment Focus Criteria PDR 2nd Quarter 2016 PSM Supportability Analysis IPT Lead Eng. Fire Control System prognostics capability Airframe access panel location for corrosion control Diagnostics 95% FI to single LRU CDR 4th Quarter 2018 PSM Supportability Analysis IPT Lead xxx XXX XXX XXX Table 9-5: Technical Reviews Include an as-of date 9.2 Product Support Element Determination Provide data for the supportability analysis methods and tools used to define and inform the elements that comprise the product support package, the planned implementation schedule, applicable tool used for the analysis, the output, and updates or reviews ). A separate schedule may be appropriate in cases when subsystems are not in sync with the basic design. Include a separate schedule if the tool has to be developed, integrated with other tools, refined, or updated. The table must include the tool being used, timeframe, and list of the required changes. This section demonstrates that the program is building its product support package on a foundation of sound data and analytical decision support capabilities.
9.3 Sustaining Engineering Provide data on processes and tools used or planned for use to monitor system performance (sustainment metrics), the product support package, the responsible office, the metrics or data monitored, any feedback process, and review timeframes ). These demonstrate that the program has a monitoring plan and capability that can trigger corrective action in the event one or more product support element is at risk of degrading sustainment performance. This data is also useful for the PSM in linking resources to readiness. The following table is a notional presentation of the data. Sustainment Performance Data Collection and Reporting Tool OPR/IPT Metrics/Data Monitored Feedback Mechanism Review Timeframes Sustainment Quad Chart PSM AO, AM, R MDTO, MDTM, O&S cost Automatic updates to PEO and DASD(MR) via DAMIR. Metrics feed from NALDA GCSS Quarterly Post IOC Review PSM Logistics Assessment Elements Feedback from operators and PSI and PSPs Summary reports forwarded to DASD(MR) Even Years Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) Sustaining Engineering IPT Ao, Am, R MDTO, MDTM, O&S cost driver metrics including but not limited to: XXX XXX XXX NALCOMIS/NALDA data analyzed and compared to baseline values and sis tools used to update product support elements as needed Critical systems effecting or AM as needed 25% of Work Unit Codes (WUCs) assessed every year Deficiency Reports PSM Chief Engineer Deficiency Report (DR) Processing Time During acquisition phases, the PSM and CE will monitor; after fielding, the PSM and CE will collaborate with the using command -4 staff to monitor All DRs assessed in less than 14 days 9-7: Sustainment Performance Monitoring Include an as-of date